Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Inflation

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the light of the recent falls in the level of the pound sterling, he intends to revise his forecast for inflation this year.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): Inflation in the fourth quarter 1984 was 4¾ per cent., as forecast in the Autumn Statement. A forecast for inflation in 1985 will be given in the Budget.

Mr. Foulkes: Will that forecast of inflation include the effects of the recently published White Paper on public expenditure, which will put up rents, rates, bus and rail fares, prescription charges, school meal prices and gas and electricity prices? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those increases are worrying the people whom the Prime Minister and Chancellor never seem to meet?

Mr. Lawson: There is no solution to the problem of inflation by providing subsidies for any of the items to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Gas and electricity prices are scheduled to rise broadly in line with inflation, and not any higher—in other words, there will be no increase in real terms—in the coming year. The White Paper on public expenditure will be fully incorporated in any forecast figure that is given.

Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that not only his forecast of inflation but his best hopes for unemployment coming down are critically dependent on real pay restraint?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing to the importance of real pay restraint. Its importance lies not so much in the sphere of inflation, but in reducing the level of unemployment, which we all want to see.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a fall in the rate of exchange of the pound cannot by itself cause inflation?

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman is right in the main. Indeed, it is striking that the fall in the sterling-dollar exchange rate through the surge in the dollar against all currencies in the last year has been accompanied by a fall, not a rise, in inflation. However, it affects monetary conditions, and those conditions as a whole must be taken firmly into account in pursuing a sound anti-inflationary policy, to which we are committed.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would be talking, not about a one dollar pound, but about a 50 cent pound if, in the last five years, we had experienced the debts and inflation that Britain suffered under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, we have been seeing in the last year, and even further back, an extraordinary surge in the dollar, to a grossly over-valued level, against all other currencies. However, if one looks at the pound in terms of the weighted index of non-dollar currencies, one sees that under the Conservatives, since 1979, the pound has fallen by 7 per cent., whereas during the last Labour Administration it fell by 23 per cent.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Chancellor's policy used to be that the market should decide the level of the pound, even when it went as high as $2·40. As he has intervened in the most direct manner possible through the minimum lending rate and the setting of that rate, may I ask him to explain just what is his policy, because, heaven knows, none of us understands it?

Mr. Lawson: The Government's policy is to maintain firm downward pressure on inflation, and it was in that context that the rate of interest was increased recently. As for letting the markets decide, the markets do decide, but the decision taken at the meeting of Finance Ministers and central bank governors of the five leading industrialised countries in Washington last week was that perhaps occasionally it was time for us to be in the market as well.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is it not true that even if inflation remains at 5 per cent, prices will still double every 14 years and that that is unacceptable for a country which seeks stability, so we must try to reduce the rate of inflation further?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. We are determined to pursue the policy of getting inflation down still further. I am sure that we shall succeed in doing so by the same policies that have got inflation down from the rising and double figures that we inherited from the Opposition to the 5 per cent, that it is today—indeed, it is rather below 5 per cent.

Mr. Blair: Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer persist in the ludicrous dogma that Government intervention is always wrong and market forces are always right, which he does not believe himself? It was not market forces that intervened to put up interest rates; it was not market forces that set the oil price above the market rate to increase Government oil revenues; and it was not market forces that propped up Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd. When will the Government intervene positively in the economy to create jobs, and not just to mop up the consequences of their own incompetence?

Mr. Lawson: Nobody is always right, not even the hon. Gentleman. I have to tell him two things. Experience shows that, on the whole, it is easier for markets to correct mistakes, even though they make them, than it is for interventionist Governments to do so. The level of employment in this country over the past 12 months has been rising, whereas in our main European competitor countries it has been falling.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Yeo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost of collecting value added tax, as a percentage of revenue received, from registered traders with a taxable turnover of less than £50,000.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I regret that no reliable estimate is available.

Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that smaller businesses have a particularly large potential for job creation and that for them the administrative and financial burden of VAT is particularly onerous? In view of that, a very cost-effective form of relief might be to exempt from VAT businesses with a turnover of less than £50,000.

Mr. Hayhoe: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of small businesses in job creation and about the importance of the Government reducing the bureaucratic loads that are placed upon them, but it would be misleading to say that the change that my hon. Friend proposes would be universally welcomed, and, anyway, it would be in breach of our European Community undertakings.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that newspaper organisations will be faced with substantial additional charges by the imposition of VAT? Has the Minister seen the Price Waterhouse and Co. report, which suggests that 7,000 jobs will be lost in the industry if VAT is imposed, and that 10 dailies and 100 weeklies will close? Will the hon. Gentleman do something to ensure that VAT is not imposed in the way that is suggested?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not think that the papers, certainly the nationals, would welcome being described as small traders with a turnover of less than £50,000, which is what the question is about. More generally, the hon. Gentleman will know that it would be wholly improper to seek to anticipate in any way the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Infrastructure (Public Expenditure)

Mr. Dixon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received regarding the level of public expenditure on the infrastructure.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): Several.

Mr. Dixon: Bearing that reply in mind, what possible justification can the Government have for slashing almost £1 billion from capital expenditure next year when every objective report has suggested that our infrastructure is crumbling? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the latest report by the committee chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh, which suggests that we should spend £50 billion to put our housing stock in order?

Mr. Rees: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that public and private sector investment is running at a record level of £55 billion this year. If we are to bandy about reports, I should like to remind the House of the OECD survey of the United Kingdom, which said, that the
main problem for the United Kingdom is unlikely to stem from an insufficient quantity of investment but rather from the inefficient use of capital or poor quality of investment.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the modest proposals of the Henley Centre for

Forecasting on selective investment in the infrastructure, based on the Treasury model, are in conflict with Government policy? They suggest that £1 billion invested per year over a five-year period would create between 70,000 and 100,000 jobs in construction, would cost £8,000 a job, would have an input content of 7 per cent. and, most important of all, would increase the money stock per year by less than 0·5 per cent.

Mr. Rees: In the long term, we feel that the efficiency and prosperity of the economy, and therefore sustainable jobs, would be better created by cuts in income tax.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the Chief Secretary tell the House to what degree Government spending on the infrastructure falls short of the annual depreciation and obsolescence of it?

Mr. Rees: No, I cannot, because we are dealing with a myriad of assets. However, I can tell the House that expenditure on national roads, for example, has increased since 1979–80 by 16 per cent., which is £104 million.

Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that in the past there have been numerous capital projects in the public sector which have made no adequate return on investment; in particular, tower blocks of flats which are now being pulled down, and projects which have overrun costs, such as the Humber bridge and the Isle of Grain power station?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. Not all capital projects necessarily show a good rate of return. Each project has to be assessed on its merits.

Mr. Hattersley: If we are right to assume from the Chief Secretary's answer that he accepts the judgment of those independent inquiries that something needs to be done about Britain's infrastructure, how does he justify tables 2.9 and 2.10 of the White Paper, which makes it clear that the Government are to cut capital expenditure in these sectors?

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that there is a private sector, an error into which his party frequently falls. The main thrust of our policy is to give more scope for manoeuvre in the private sector, which is increasing its investment every year.

Johnson Matthey Bankers

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will estimate the potential cost to Her Majesty's Government of the Johnson Matthey resuce operation.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): None, Sir. Any cost will be met by the banking department of the Bank of England.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that the rescuing banks can offset any of their losses on the guarantee against tax? Is that not a potential cost to the Exchequer, and why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer not admit that when he made a statement on 14 December, when he deliberately misled the House by denying it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not say "deliberately misled". He may use the word "inadvertently".

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend did not mislead the House on that point. Any call under a guarantee of


indemnity in commercial practices is always allowable as a charge against tax and this case is no different. The question of any call under such an indemnity does not yet arise.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the second occasion when the Government have allowed banks to take part in tax indemnities on a large scale— thereby putting the burden on every other taxpayer— when taking part in rescuing banks? The first occasion was when it was suggested that they could rescue the central American banks in respect of Argentina and other countries, which resulted in a £200 million loss to the taxpayers of Britain. Now, to save Johnson Matthey, the Government have given a nod and a wink to all those banks which refuse to contribute to the rescue so that they will not have to pay a penny piece themselves. That is hoodwinking the British electorate, and does it not mean that there is one law for the banks and another for the British people, many of whom are up to their necks in debt as a result of this Government's policies?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not help to have long supplementary questions, as they keep out other hon. Members.

Mr. Stewart: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments on the lifeboat and rescue operations, similar operations to which were conducted by the Labour Government in the 1970s. I do not recall him making the same comments then. The operation relating to the rescue of Johnson Matthey was conducted because the Bank of England Act 1946, also introduced by a Labour Government, gives the Bank of England freedom to use its own resources.

Pound Sterling

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current real value of the pound sterling expressed as a percentage of its real value as at January 1979.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The domestic purchasing power of the pound is 58 per cent. of what it was in January 1979.

Mr. Hamilton: Is that not a disgraceful answer? Will the Minister recognise that since the Conservatives came to power in 1979 there has been a relentless reduction in the purchasing power of the pound? If he will not listen to Her Majesty's Opposition, will he pay attention to Lord Stockton, who yesterday advised the Government to depart from their monetarist policy? If they do not, then, like the Belgrano, they will be sunk.

Mr. Stewart: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, if he wants to comment on the purchasing power of the pound under this Government, did not choose May 1979 as the starting date for his question. Under this Government during the last five years the purchasing power of the pound has fallen by about 40 per cent. It fell by well over 50 per cent. under the Labour Government whom he supported. The last Conservative Government was the first since the 1950s to have an inflation rate lower than that of the preceding Government. This Government will achieve the same.

Mr. Higgins: As the question referred to a comparison with 1979, will my hon. Friend say to what extent the decline in the value of the pound was due to the highly

inflationary wage settlements which had been agreed at that time? Does he agree that the decline in the value of the pound was, therefore, a hangover from the Labour Government?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the bulk of inflation under the Conservative Government which took office in 1979 took place in the very early years when we had to clear up the mess that had been left behind by the Labour Government.

Mr. Freud: Will the Economic Secretary accept that the strength of the dollar makes it extremely attractive to American galleries and collectors to purchase British works of art? Will he consider raising the allocation of money available for acceptances in lieu of tax?

Mr. Stewart: I do not have responsibility for that, but, of course, the exchange rate between sterling and the dollar also makes it attractive for British companies to sell into the American market, and I hope that they will do so.

Tax Cuts (Job Creation)

Mr. Baldry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he measures the impact of tax cuts on the creation of new jobs.

Mr. Lawson: New jobs are created by successful companies and eager workers. Lower taxes encourage enterprise and effort and so help to secure that success.

Mr. Baldry: I do not suppose that it has gone unnoticed by the man in the Banbury market place that those countries which have thriving economies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—and which are creating jobs, such as Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea, which were referred to yesterday by Lord Stockton, are exactly the countries that have low tax thresholds. What seems to be causing concern to some commentators—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to ask a question and not to give a preamble of his own views?

Mr. Baldry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what is of concern to some commentators is that as soon as people get more money in their pockets they will spend it on imports? Does he agree that that matter is subject to objective test? Will he tell us what inquiries the Treasury is making?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right in saying that a proportion of any increase in disposable income, whether it is achieved through an increase in pay or through a reduction in taxes, will be spent on imports. Of course, we do a thriving trade both ways and our balance of payments is likely to be in balance, or even in surplus, this year, despite the effects of the coal strike. These matters are taken into account when the Treasury starts to make its forecast.
As for low taxes, my hon. Friend is on to an even more important point. It is striking that, apart from the countries which he mentioned, among the major industrialised countries in the world the two most successful, the United States and Japan, are the ones which have the lowest levels of taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us how many jobs will be created by means of tax cuts? More important, will he tell us how many


more jobs will be destroyed by public spending cuts in housing and all the other areas of public provision? Will he say how many more jobs will be lost because of expenditure cuts than will be gained by giving tax cuts to his rich friends?

Mr. Lawson: The Government propose that public expenditure should remain steady in real terms over a period of years and should not be reduced. That is what the Government's plans clearly show. It is significant that we have had steady growth at about 3 per cent. a year since the trough of the recession in 1981. The number of those who are employed or self-employed in Britain is growing, whereas it is falling in many of the countries of our European competitors.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is untrue to suggest that there is no academic opinion in support of his view that tax cuts help employment prospects? Is he aware of the work done by the employment research institute of Warwick university, which concluded that tax cuts were among the most effective way of promoting proper employment prospects and reducing inflation? It concluded that tax cuts constituted a substantially more effective way of achieving that end than public sector expenditure?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is correct. The conclusion to which he refers has been shown by Warwick university's model and study and by Liverpool university's model and study. Of course, different computer models produce different results. I regard all computer simulations with a considerable pinch of salt. These models tend to concentrate on the demand side of the economy rather than on the supply side. Secondly, we cannot buy jobs. If that were possible, it would be a simple matter for every country with unemployment to buy its way out. We shall create jobs and reduce unemployment by having a more dynamic economy, by improving the supply side and especially by reducing rigidities in the labour market.

Dr. McDonald: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the results of the study of the London Business School show unequivocally on a pound-for-pound basis that public spending creates more jobs than do tax cuts? Will he send the Government's chief economic adviser back to the London Business School so that he can catch up with its latest economic thinking, and will the right hon. Gentleman then take his advice?

Mr. Lawson: The London Business School's simulation examined Government employment, not Government spending. It found that by spending more money on recruiting more civil servants we should get more people in jobs, which is obvious. If the hon. Lady thinks that that is the best way of creating a strong economy, I must tell her that she is mistaken.

Taxation and Public Expenditure

Mr. Dykes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made specific calculations of the effects on unemployment and demand from the operation of the multiplier in (a) direct tax reductions and (b) additional public expenditure.

Mr. Peter Rees: Tax cuts encourage growth of employment by helping to improve the performance of the economy. Permanent new jobs cannot be bought by injecting additional demand into the economy.

Mr. Dykes: As the net figures for capital formation in the public and private sectors are not the same as the gross figures that the Government keep using, and as they show that we are seriously under-investing, why do my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer continue to indulge in fantasy notions of mass entrepreneurship on a grand scale rather than accept that every pound of additional capital spending in the public and private sectors is bound to produce six or more new jobs than would every extra pound of reduced taxation?

Mr. Rees: I do not think that there will be universal acceptance of my hon. Friend's statistic. As he is concerned with public investment, or investment generally, I remind him that total fixed investment has risen by about 8 per cent. since last year.

Mr. Winnick: Despite all the rhetoric, why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not admit that the curse and misery of mass unemployment will not be ended until the Government leave office?

Mr. Rees: I am tempted to borrow the expression that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) uses on these occasions: fatuous questions are likely only to elicit fatuous answers.

Corporation Tax

Mr. Fallon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will estimate the effect on jobs of the changes in corporation tax arising out of his 1984 Budget.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Precise estimates are not possible, but removing distortions against the employment of labour is bound to be helpful to jobs.

Mr. Fallon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that these changes have been applauded by British industry? Will he take further steps to ensure that investment decisions by industry are increasingly taken on commercial and not fiscal grounds?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is correct. The changes in the 1984 Budget in corporation tax, including the reduction in the cost of employing labour and the abolition of the national insurance surcharge, have made the balance between the choice of employing labour or using machinery much more even and have removed major distortions in the system. The corporation tax and capital allowances changes are designed to induce the best allocation of resources in the economy. That is their main objective.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Economic Secretary aware that, unless the Government quickly upgrade their new system of annual capital allowances for depreciation, many firms will simply not have the necessary resources after tax to provide the jobs they could otherwise provide? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps, therefore, to bring these allowances a little closer to the reality of industrial obsolescence?

Mr. Stewart: I believe that the new allowance system that we have introduced has been widely welcomed by industry because it has been coupled with a sharp reduction in the rates of corporation tax. The hon. Gentleman referred to a lack of resources for investment, but I believe


that profitable and successful companies will find that, at a lower tax rate, they will have an even greater incentive to invest for the future.

Economic Growth

Mr. Bellingham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the present level of growth in the economy.

Mr. Law son: Gross domestic product rose by about 1½ per cent. in the year to the third quarter of 1984.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because of this year's excellent growth rate, there has been a record net increase in the number of new firms? Does he agree that, if it were not for the highly damaging and totally unjustified miners' strike, there would be even better growth and less unemployment?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is correct. The coal strike temporarily dragged down our rate of growth during 1984. Had it not been for the strike, the growth rate in the year to the third quarter of 1984 would have been not 1½ per cent., but about 3 per cent.—equal to the highest increase in Europe. The coal strike is damaging jobs, investment and the economy. Fortunately, it looks as though it will not be too long before this damaging strike is over.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Chancellor explain to the country why, if he has such faith in his own economic policies, his public expenditure White paper does not predict a decrease in the unemployment level, but predicts that during the next few years unemployment will remain over the 3 million figure?

Mr. Lawson: The unemployment figures in the White Paper are not a prediction. The figures cited in White papers produced by previous Governments were also not predictions. The figures are a conventional assumption for the purpose of calculating benefits and other elements.

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although he may be satisfied with the present level of growth in the economy as a whole, that faith is not sustained on a national basis? What is my right hon. Friend doing for the north of England, compared with the south of England, to ensure that there is a greater stimulation of growth in the area?

Mr. Lawson: I would, of course, be happy to see a higher rate of growth. I hope that that will be possible. I believe that it certainly will be possible as soon as the coal strike is over. It is especially important that we sustain the rate of growth, as we have done for more than four years. I shall continue to do that. I am conscious of the feeling in some parts of the north that people there have been left out, but I am convinced that the policies that are right for the United Kingdom as a whole are right for the north of England.

Mr. Lofthouse: When the Chancellor was in America explaining the growth of the economy, was he able to explain to the Americans that the miners' strike costs him between £90 million and £100 million a week, and did he say why he thought that was a worthwhile economic exercise?

Mr. Lawson: The Americans to whom I have spoken, and many other people overseas, are astonished that any

trade union anywhere in the free world would maintain the proposition that uneconomic pits should be kept open, however large their losses.

Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no economic indicator is a replacement for a pro-business culture? Does he agree that we really need a much more vigorous and enterprising economy?

Mr. Lawson: That is correct. That is the secret of success. It is what the Americans have found, and that is the direction in which we in this country are going.

Mr. Ron Brown: The Chancellor has said much about uneconomic pits. How can he justify an uneconomic Government? Is it simply a matter of class rule, is it simply the bankers' ethic, or is it something special that he can explain to us? We listen to the right hon. Gentleman's diatribes week in and week out.

Mr. Lawson: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Johnson Matthey Bankers. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has already answered a question on that matter. It is certainly not the policy of the Bank of England to bail out any bank irrespective of the circumstances.

National Economic Development Council

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the reports presented to the meeting of the National Economic Development Council on 9 January.

Mr. Lawson: The council had a lengthy and useful discussion on three reports, all of which have been made publicly available.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Chancellor accept the accuracy of the reports that our infrastructure is in need of urgent repair?

Mr. Lawson: I certainly do not accept the accuracy of the figures bandied about in the NEDO report. However, the Government are taking a new look at the whole of the public estate so as to be able to form a better assessment of the state of what is known as the built infrastructure. Of the two elements of the infrastructure most frequently alluded to, road building will increase substantially next year in real terms, and so will investment in the water industry.

Mr. Latham: How did my right hon. Friend react to the excellent housekeeping point made in one of those reports that the longer one leaves basic maintenance work on the infrastructure, the more it will cost?

Mr. Lawson: I share my hon. Friend's belief in good housekeeping. My hon. Friend has mentioned one aspect of good housekeeping; another aspect is balancing the Government's books.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the NEDC whether he has changed his mind about the mining dispute being a good investment?

Mr. Lawson: I never said that the mining dispute was a good investment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said that the money spent in resisting the strike was a good investment, as indeed it is. The sooner the strike—which is none of our making—is over, the better.

Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent events on the exchange markets remind us of the


underlying fragility of the recovery in this country and of the fact that injections of public expenditure, however worthy, may impede that recovery still further?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. One of the factors behind the recent turbulence in the foreign exchange market was the fear in the markets that the Government might be about to relax their grip on inflation by indulging in excessive public expenditure.

Mr. Terry Davis: As the Chancellor has just repeated for a second time his comment that the Government still think that the miners' strike is a worthwhile investment for the Government, can he tell how much has been invested?

Mr. Lawson: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman listened to what I said before asking a question.

Adult Education (VAT)

Mr. Freud: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate what sum would be lost to his Department if the liability to value added tax of some adult education courses were ended for the financial year 1985–86; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hay hoe: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Freud: I cannot thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. With the minimal income that he receives from VAT on adult education, with its selective imposition, is there not a strong incentive for him to reconsider the matter and abolish it, so that adult education may flourish, as was promised in his party's manifesto?

Mr. Hayhoe: The law on this matter has not changed, and the vast majority of adult education is outside the scope of VAT.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the value of adult education as a medium for retraining people for jobs and as a means of giving self-dignity to unemployed and elderly people? Will he see whether the whole of adult education can be exempted from VAT?

Mr. Hayhoe: There are problems. Recreational and sports courses are subject to VAT when provided by the private sector. It would therefore be unfair not to impose VAT on local government when it is in direct competition with the private sector. Such courses have been subject to VAT since the beginning.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that it is disgraceful that the Department has not monitored the effects of its decision on adult education, especially as local authorities have already assessed the effect of VAT on adult education courses?

Mr. Hayhoe: There has been no change in the law or in the practice of Customs and Excise in implementing it. What has changed is that some local education authorities have increased their prices and are competing directly with similar courses in the private sector. There should be a similar tax regime for both.

Departmental Costs

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further action he is taking to control the total running costs of his Department.

Mr. Hayhoe: The Treasury's plans were set out in the White Papers on financial management, which were

published in September 1983 and July 1984. Their objective is to keep running costs to the minimum to do the work effectively.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is doing all in his power to achieve savings through the privatisation of public sector operations?

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In the Treasury, domestic cleaning services and some other supporting services such as laundry and press cuttings are already contracted out. The central computer and telecommunications agency and the Chessington computer centre use the services of computer consultants and software houses.

Mr. Haynes: As the hon. Gentleman is the same Minister who used to come to the Dispatch Box bragging about laying off civil servants, will he say whether the reduction in numbers means more people going on the dole because they have lost their jobs in his Department and others?

Mr. Hayhoe: No, it means increased effectiveness and efficiency in the public service and better value for the taxpayers' money. I should have thought that that would be supported in all parts of the House.

Employment and Inflation

Mr. Dubs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the effect of the recent fall in the pound sterling exchange rate on employment and inflation.

Mr. Lawson: The Government have taken firm action to keep inflation under control. This will help the growth of employment, though moderation of wage settlements remains vital if new jobs are to be generated on the scale that we should all like to see.

Mr. Dubs: Is not the truth that, despite the Chancellor's assertions, the link between a low rate of inflation and any improvement in the horrific level of unemployment is so tenuous as to be virtually nonexistent? Is not the truth that the Chancellor is setting his sights on the level of inflation and disregarding entirely the consequences for the level of employment and the exchange rate?

Mr. Lawson: As I have said more than once, the level of employment in Britain in the past year has risen steadily whereas in most of our major competitor countries in western Europe it has been falling. That shows the success of our policies at a difficult time. I readily concede that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have no interest in bringing inflation down, as is seen whenever we have the misfortune to have them in office.

Mr. Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a fluctuating exchange rate is a serious disincentive to investment in export-orientated activity? Does he agree also that the cause of job creation would be well served by a Government policy designed to increase the stability of the exchange rate? Would it not be in our interests, in pursuit of that policy, to enter into negotiations with our Common Market colleagues to widen the scope of the European monetary system?

Mr. Lawson: The main turbulence in the foreign exchange markets recently, and for some time past, has been the exchange rate against the dollar. Joining the EMS would not make any difference to that.

Taxation (Budget Representations)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received about possible new taxation proposals for the 1985 Budget.

Mr. Peter Rees: Several.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware of the widespread opposition to the imposition of VAT on books, which would be a tax on learning, and of the widespread opposition to the taxation of pensions, which would be retrospective if people who had already made contributions found out afterwards that they were to be taxed? If the economy is in such a mess that the Treasury needs more revenue, why should not a wealth tax be introduced, or is this Tory Government afraid to ask their supporters to pay for their discredited policies?

Mr. Rees: As to a wealth tax, I would refer the hon. Member to the report of the Select Committee that was set up under the last Labour Government. As to the hon. Member's other points, I cannot anticipate the Budget of my right hon. Friend, except that I would remind the House of the statement that was made before Christmas by my right hon. Friend about retrospective legislation concerning pensions.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we proceed with Prime Minister's questions today, may I say to the House that I believe that the noise and the interruptions during Prime Minister's questions last Tuesday was worse than I have ever heard it before. It is part of our democratic tradition that we should hear each other with respect. I hope that that will happen today.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Cowans: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Cowans: Will the Prime Minister take time today publicly to announce changes in the policies of her Government that will offer a ray of hope to the unemployed in the northern region, in particular in Newcastle and Gateshead in my constituency, where there are pockets of unemployment as high as 40 per cent., with the prospect of more to come as the policies of her Government decimate the shipbuilding and heavy engineering industries? [HON. MEMBERS: "TOO long."] The only thing that is too long is the dole queue. Is the honest answer of the Prime Minister to the questions I have posed that under her Government there is no hope for the unemployed?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Member's problem and to similar problems relating to unemployment is to win orders. The answer to winning orders is to keep inflation low and to have good designs and competitive products that will sell both at home and on world markets.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just as unemployment and the need to create more wealth-producing jobs is rightly recognised as an urgent priority, it is also worth reflecting upon the sombre thought that the world does not owe a living to the more than 23·5 million people in this country who are in work? Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless a sense of realism prevails in the 1985 wage round so that pay increases are, at the very least, matched by an improvement in productivity, more of those who are in work will be at risk? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can help the House. Will the hon. Member please make his question brief?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. What is important is that unit wage costs should be as low as those of our competitors. We have done better recently, but so have our competitors. It is vital that our unit wage costs should match theirs and that, therefore, we should keep wages down and productivity up.

Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister seen today's statement by the national executive committee of the National Union of Mine workers, which makes it clear that the union wants negotiations to take place without preconditions and wants them to begin early next week? As somebody who told me last Tuesday that she really wants an end to this dispute, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether she welcomes this constructive approach by the union?

The Prime Minister: As I told the right hon. Gentleman, I am anxious for there to be a clear settlement. As we have already been through seven rounds of negotiations, it is very important that we — [HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] The country has already seen seven rounds of negotiations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] How very childish.
As there have already been some seven rounds of negotiations, it is important that the next round of negotiations is entered into on a clear basis so that there can be no fudging whatever. The NCB made its position clear this morning when it issued a statement which said:
If, following the meeting of the NUM National Executive Committee, the National Coal Board receives written indication that they are prepared to help resolve the problem of dealing with uneconomic capacity, the National Coal Board will be prepared to re-enter negotiations with a view to resolving the current dispute. The proposals must establish that the NUM recognise that management must deal with the problems of uneconomic capacity and that the NUM will co-operate in this essential task, recognising the other commitments that the Board are prepared to make on the future of their employees and the industry.
The NCB has made its position clear in writing That is the best basis on which to enter into negotiations—to make the position clear in writing.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us exactly who has demanded the new precondition of a written undertaking from the NUM, especially when, late last night, neither Mr. Ned Smith nor the union nor ACAS was aware that any such stipulation was to be made? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is the Government who


have made that demand? Frankly, her dirty fingerprints are all over that kind of request. Does the Prime Minister really want to encourage negotiation, or is she still obsessed with securing humiliation, no matter what the cost or how long it takes?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman forgets the statement that was made on Tuesday, part of which I read out to him on Tuesday, which said:
In seven rounds of negotiations lasting 175 hours"—

Mr. Healey: Answer the question.

The Prime Minister: I intend to answer the question in my own way.
In seven rounds of negotiations lasting 175 hours the NUM have refused to move from their demand that every uneconomic pit should be kept going until the last tonne is exhausted. The Coal Board cannot meet this impossible demand that would undermine the Coal industry's future and provide no security for miners or for the children of miners in the years to come … The Board want to achieve a settlement of this dispute but we do not want another round of talks in which the NUM yet again persist with their one impossible demand leading yet again to failure.
Now perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will listen. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so reluctant for the NUM to make its position clear?

Mr. Kinnock: The NUM has made its position clear — much too clear for the convenience of the Prime Minister — because it was the NUM which said that there would be no preconditions. With answers or evasions such as the Prime Minister offers, it is no wonder that the Earl of Stockton calls her policies futile.

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. The NUM has not made its position clear. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman is already arguing about it. The NUM — [Interruption.]—should do what the Coal Board has done. It should put its exact position in writing. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so reluctant — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the House that it was precisely for this reason that I made my comment at the beginning of Question Time. The Prime Minister is trying to answer the question.

The Prime Minister: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so reluctant to put his and the NUM's position on the closure of uneconomic pits into writing, when the previous Labour Government not only put it into writing but into legislation, when they provided for grants that would
further assist in the re-deployment of the manpower resources of the Board and the elimination of uneconomic … capacity.
Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman be so frank? Is he incapable of it?

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those miners who have already returned to work, often in the face of the most serious intimidation, are fighting for the future of the British mining industry? Will she take this opportunity to affirm her Government's determination to protect them from intimidation, in the shape of both present attempts and any future attempts by the National Union of Mineworkers' leadership when the strike is over?

The Prime Minister: Yes, every possible step will be taken. My hon. Friend is right to remind us that the strike got under way without a ballot, and was pursued with

violence and intimidation. It is because of the bravery of the 77,000 members of the NUM who are back at work that the industry has a chance to flourish in future.

Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that the country will test the acceptability of any negotiation by whether it is acceptable to those who have worked during the -dispute? Does she agree that they have been deserted by the Trades Union Congress and the Labour party, and that the country does not expect the Government to desert them?

The Prime Minister: I recognise, and agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that the country owes a great deal to the 77,000 working miners and that they must not be let down. I also recognise that any result must make it absolutely clear that uneconomic pits must close and that the final decision must rest with the management of the NCB after the proper processes of consultation have been gone through. It is totally cynical to try to enter into negotiations without the NUM making its position clear on those matters.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the depressed level of sterling now represents an outstanding opportunity for British exporters to increase their share of overseas markets? Will she urge them to take advantage of that by pricing competitively at the new levels, rather than leaving their overseas prices at historic levels in the hope of a short-term foreign exchange windfall gain?

The Prime Minister: Yes, those companies that are in the best position to take advantage of the present price of sterling are already competitive. It is totally and utterly wrong to rely on the lower value of sterling to make goods competitive. By virtue of management, goods should be competitive. A double benefit can be gained by taking advantage of what, I hope, is a temporary lower value of sterling, which is far too low at present.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wardell: In view of the sincere, objective and earnest proposals put forward yesterday by Welsh church leaders in an attempt to bring the miners' dispute to an end, will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance to the House this afternoon that she will desist from using hardship as a weapon of vindictiveness to get her political way?

The Prime Minister: If there has been any vindictiveness during the strike, it has been on the part of the leadership of the NUM which has deliberately put its members through privations when, since 6 March, they have had on the table the best offer since nationalisation began. The leadership of the NUM has been vindictive and has nearly split its own union.

Mr. Howard: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider the implications of the suggestion made in last week's debate on unemployment by the leader of the Social Democratic party that VAT should be extended to everything but food? Will she do what she can


to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to resist the insatiable demands of the right hon. Gentleman for a massive extension of that tax?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that information. I seem to have missed that speech, but I now see that I must read it carefully.

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: How can the Prime Minister justify her decision not to give thousands of pensioners and poor people in Scotland the same treatment as those in the rest of Britain with regard to the allocation of exceptional heating allowances? How much more must they suffer before she shows them any mercy? Is her "hard-hearted Hannah" attitude to the people of Scotland to continue

because they have twice decisively rejected her at the polls? Will she tell the House now that she will give them that allowance?

The Prime Minister: All pensioners are treated very much more generously now under the Conservative Government than they ever were under a Labour Government, and people know it. The £400 million that the taxpayer finds for heating allowances is about 40 per cent. more than was provided by the Labour Government, so Labour Members are in no position to criticise anyone.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Prime Minister note, as we move towards the celebration of freedom and peace on VE day, that the latest act of the Government of East Germany is to demolish a Christian church so that the prisoners of their tyranny can be more easily executed if they try to escape?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. and learned Friend is aware, we have said that we wish to give thanks to our dead on VE day, and we wish to commemorate 40 years of peace, which we hope will continue. That is the right spirit with which to enter the activities of VE day.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 JANUARY — Second Reading of the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill.
Proceedings on the Brunei and Maldives Bill (Lords)
TUESDAY 29 JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the Representation of the People Bill.
WEDNESDAY 30 JANUARY—There will be a debate on the inspector's report on the airport inquiries 1981–83, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion relating to the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules.
THURSDAY 31 JANUARY—A debate on the Royal Air Force, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (7th Allotted Day): subject for debate to be announced.

Mr. Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for postponing the Committee stage of the Hong Kong Bill so that further preparatory work can be done by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is unprecedented and entirely inappropriate for a report that commands as much interest and is as important as the Eyre report on the future of Stansted to be debated on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. May I ask for an absolute assurance that, if the debate has been arranged only to hear the views of hon. Members, there will be another debate on a specific motion before the Government take a final decision on the future of Stansted?
In the light of allegations made in today's New Statesman about a deal between Britain and the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile during the Falklands war, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement early next week about the changes in voting by the Government at the United Nations on human rights violations in Chile, and about the Government's decision to end the arms embargo to Chile?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us notice of when he expects a debate on the special order required to make the unnecessary and unacceptable increases in water charges in the London area?

Mr. Biffen: To take those points in the order in which they were made, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments on the Committee stage of the Hong Kong Bill. It enables me to underline the fact that our decision was taken at the request of the Opposition, and it in no way diminishes the great importance attached to the legislation. I hope that it will pass speedily through the House.
Secondly, as to the comments upon Stansted, it is by no means unprecedented for a motion on the Adjournment to feature in this kind of debate, but I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman argues. After the decision has been taken, the House will be given the further opportunity to debate and, if it wishes, to vote upon the Government's

airports policy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be touching upon this in his speech on Wednesday.
I will of course draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the points concerning Chile.
Finally, the water order to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not feature in next week's business, but I take note of his keen interest in the matter.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman may inadvertently have misled the House. When he said, "after the decision has been taken", in the context of his remarks on the Stansted debate, did he mean after the debate has taken place or that we would have a debate after the decision was taken?

Mr. Biffen: After the decision on the inspector's report.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: May I refer my hon. Friend to the question that has just been raised by the Leader of the Opposition about the debate on Stansted on Wednesday? A rumour is going around in the Manchester area that we are to have a two-day debate on Stansted and that the Opposition are giving up one of their days so that the House can have two days to debate this urgent question. Can he confirm or deny that the Opposition are giving a day? If the Opposition are not giving an extra day, could he perhaps extend the debate? There is a tremendous demand by hon. Members to speak on the subject, which is of great interest not only to Essex and Heathrow but also to the north of England?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted that it is a one-day debate that proceeds next week. I take note of what he says about the possibility of suspending the 10 o'clock rule. Perhaps that matter could be further considered through the usual channels.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Why cannot next Wednesday's debate on Stansted take place on the basis of an amendable motion? Why can we not have a motion that can be amended to take note of the report, so that hon. Members on both sides of the House can give the Government a clear indication of their viewpoint on this important issue? Can the Leader of the House help us on a matter of the first importance?

Mr. Biffen: Of course I recognise the importance of the matter, and I recognise the deep interest that the right hon. Gentleman has in this topic. The point that he now suggests was considered, but it was thought more appropriate that the debate should arise on the motion on the Adjournment and that my right hon. Friends who have a certain status in these matters should be able to sit and listen to the debate.

Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the somewhat selective reference that the Leader of the Opposition made to human rights in connection with Chile, would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a very strong case for the House to have the opportunity to discuss the violation of human rights all over the world and its relationship to foreign policy generally?

Mr. Biffen: I recognise that point. I have none the less to be rather unhelpful in the sense that no provision is made for the subject next week, and I do not think that there is an early likelihood of such a debate taking place in Government time. But it is a very important issue.

Mr. Tony Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the precedents, which show that, during the miners' dispute of 1974 the then Conservative Prime Minister granted four debates in Government time? Is it not now absolutely clear that the Government are as afraid of a debate on the mining industry in the House as they are of negotiations between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board? Is he also aware that. Mr. Speaker now having 18 times ruled that a debate on the mining industry is not specific, urgent or important enough to take precedence over the Orders of the Day, he, as Leader of the House, is in effect trying to exclude any parliamentary examination of the wholly fraudulent economic arguments used to justify the attack upon the mining industry?

Mr. Biffen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that in that question the right hon. Gentleman was not alluding to me.

Mr. Benn: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the fact that 18 times since the strike began, you have felt unable to grant a request for a debate under Standing Order No. 10. I have checked in the Library that four times in the 1974 dispute the then Government gave time. My remarks were addressed to the Leader of the House. He is trying to prevent Parliament from discussing the mining industry. That is manifestly so.

Mr. Biffen: I shall look at all those points and draw such comfort as I can from the comparison between the current mining dispute and that in 1974.

Mr. Fred Silvester: The acoustics may not be perfect, and I should like to be clear about the debate on Stansted. Some of us feel that it would have been of benefit to the Minister in considering the issue if the voices had first been counted on the desirability of allowing for a 15 million passenger expansion at Stansted. Did my right hon. Friend say that there had been no request for an extension of the debate to two days, and that the suggested day's debate would take place only after a decision had already been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, so he would not know how many hon. Members hold strong feelings about the issue before he made his decision?

Mr. Biffen: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is yes, but doubtless my hon. Friend will be able to pursue that point later. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be touching on that issue in his speech on Wednesday. Representations have been made to me this afternoon about the desirability of extending the debate and, as I have said, we shall consider that through the usual channels.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern about the draft proposals for limited list prescribing? Will he give an undertaking that there will be a full debate on those proposals, and that the issue will not be hidden away in a one-and-a-half hour debate after 10 pm?

Mr. Biffen: I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's point about the concern. There has certainly been considerable correspondence on the matter. I cannot give any undertaking about the amount of time allocated to the debate, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: May I reinforce the remarks made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris)? Every hon. Member must be receiving an enormous volume of letters from general practitioners and their patients, all of whom will be adversely affected by the Government's proposals. It is not sufficient for the Leader of the House to duck the question. Will he give a firm guarantee that there will be a full day's debate on that important issue?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, I cannot accept the premise of his argument about the amount of adversity that the proposals have given rise to. The hon. Gentleman has made a request about the amount of time needed for a debate, but he will know that such matters are normally dealt with through the usual channels. Nevertheless, I note what has been said.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will doubtless have heard Lord Stockton's eloquent and scintillating plea that the country should adopt new technology with more enthusiasm. As their Lordships have set us an interesting example in that regard, perhaps my right hon. Friend will agree that there are many directions in which this House could move. How soon will we have an opportunity to accelerate the adoption of new technology here?

Mr. Biffen: The House wuld probably wish to adopt rather more measured techniques than my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow time for an early and full debate on the De Lorean affair? The Public Accounts Committee has said that that affair involved one of the gravest misuses of public money. We must go further than we have done so far, and hold a debate in the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accede to that request, which comes from the whole Committee.

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for informing me that he would raise that point. He has raised an issue of real substance and I shall look into it, and be in touch with him.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does the Leader of the House mind me drawing his attention to early-day motion 36, which stands in my name and which argues the case for a blindness allowance?
[That this House, whilst appreciating all that has been done for the blind by this and previous governments, wishes to remind the Government of the acceptance by successive Ministers of the case for a blindness allowance; and, in particular, the statement by the then Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled (the Right honourable Member for Daventry) on 24th July 1979 that the case for an income in the form of a blindness allowance is unanswerable on its merits; points out to the Government that the blind do not normally qualify, for mobility, invalidity, attendance or other allowances, unless suffering from a second disability; and calls upon the Government to take immediate action to replace the existing range of benefits available to the blind with a means-tested blindness allowance.]
My right hon. Friend will no doubt recollect that some weeks ago an Adjournment debate on that subject was initiated by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). With his customary generosity and courtesy, he


allowed me to intervene in it. As the early-day motion has now been signed by 201 hon. Members, will my right hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need for a more general opportunity to debate the issue as soon as possible?

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend, who also gave me notice of his intention to draw my attention to that early-day motion, and I congratulate him on the skill with which he is conducting his campaign for the allowance. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate, but we are beginning to approach the Budget season and I am sure that the formidable arithmetic contained in the numbers who have signed the motion will not have been lost on my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Don Dixon: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to look at early-day motion 285 standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and 112 right hon. and hon. Members concerning unemployment in the construction industry and the fact that there are now 450,000 unemployed building workers?
[That this House, concerned at the mass level of unemployment in the construction industry and the number of families on local authority housing lists, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to initiate a massive increase in public investment, to construct more housing, new and improved roads, to carry out an overhaul of water and sewage systems and an increase in public works, as suggested by the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the building trades employers and construction industry trade unions in an attempt to get 450,000 unemployed building workers back to work and put new life back into the industries that supply the materials, thereby creating even more jobs.]
Bearing in mind the fact that the report, published today, of the committee chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh states that we need to spend £50 million to put our housing stock in order, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the important issue of unemployment in the construction industry?

Mr. Biffen: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in underlining the importance of the subject, but I regret that I cannot offer him the prospect of a debate next week either on the subject generally or on the terms of the early-day motion. However, he may have a chance to make some of the points he wishes to make in the debate that we shall be having on the White Paper on public expenditure.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Following the question from the Leader of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the somewhat disingenuous and pusillanimous procedural device of having Wednesday's debate on the Eyre report on the Adjournment? Although the Secretary of State for Transport has repeatedly emphasised that, because of his quasi-judicial position, he is unable to comment in any way on the findings of the Eyre Report, that will be the subject of our debate. Would it not be better to have that debate on, say, early-day motion 146 entitled "Stansted and the Regions", which would give the House as a whole a chance to express its view?
[That this House, deeply concerned to achieve balanced economic growth throughout the United

Kingdom, and believing that the proposed massive expansion of Stansted Airport would produce unjustifiable urban growth and congestion in North West Essex and East Hertfordshire, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to opt now for a policy which, while providing for a modest increase in activity at Stansted, subject to a fixed ceiling, would place the greater emphasis on taking all possible steps to expand the use of provincial airports to meet demand in the region of its origin, the case for which has been well documented and shown to be financially viable by various groups, notably the North of England Regional Consortium.]

Mr. Biffen: I take note of the representations that my hon. Friend makes, but I do not want to raise his hopes too high, having told the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that we considered the two alternatives and decided that on balance there was virtue in choosing the Adjournment motion as the means of promoting the debate.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: Has the Leader of the House noted early-day motion 266, which has been signed by 175 hon. Members, and early-day motion 299 entitled "Homelessness in Severe Weather"?
[That this House is deeply concerned at the plight of those people without shelter or a roof over their heads at night at this time of intense cold and severe winter conditions; and calls on the Government to take emergency steps, in consultation with local authorities, to ensure that warm shelter and beds are provided for those in need by the taking over of buildings together with other emergency action such as the use of underground railway stations, &amp;c.]
[That this House calls upon London Regional Transport to open one or more Underground stations at night during severe bad weather to allow homeless people to take shelter there; notes the generous offer of the Salvation Army to supervise people taking advantage of such a facility at no public charge; and welcomes the donation of well over 2,000 blankets by firms and members of the public for the protection and comfort of those without shelter.]
Has the right hon. Gentleman spoken to the Ministers concerned and asked them to make a statement to the House—I am not asking for a debate—on the important issue of people who are out in the cold without any night shelter? As hon. Members on both sides have raised this matter, may we have a statement next week to the effect that something serious will be done to help those people?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly convey that request.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the first day of the television experiment in another place tended to confirm the fears of those of us who believe that such an experiment here would change the character of this place by concentrating the attention on theatrical performance rather than on the debate and the words that come out of our mouths?

Mr. Biffen: If that be true, I reckon that we could have put on a better show.

Mr. James Hamilton: In view of the disgruntled feelings of the people of Scotland in general and the senior citizens in particular because extra fuel allowance is being paid to the people of London, Sussex and the south, will the right hon. Gentleman


request the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement to the House explaining the logic of a policy that is causing hardship in Scotland?

Mr. Biffen: As I was innovative enough to go to Scotland last weekend, I am happy to confirm what the hon. Gentleman says about the keen interest that exists in this topic, and I shall, as he requests, mention it to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some consolation in what he said about guaranteeing the House another opportunity to adjudicate on the Government's airport policy, when formulated? In view of the many hon. Members who are concerned about the issue, will my right hon. Friend reconsider whether it would be in accordance with majority opinion if the advice of the House were given in a substantive way before the Government's decision?

Mr. Biffen: I shall take note of what my right hon. Friend says. It is a very formidable request, and not one to which I should make an instantaneous response.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Can the Leader of the House tell us what consideration was given to the request several times recently at business questions for a debate on the current miners' dispute so that all hon. Members could have the chance to ask questions? For example, we want to ask why the spokesman of the National Coal Board, speaking on the radio at 8 o'clock this morning, did not mention anything about preconditions that the NCB would want before discussions started, yet at 11.07 am, when the NUM national executive committee was meeting, the NCB issued a statement to say that it did want preconditions. It is more urgent than ever that hon. Members are given the opportunity to ask Her Majesty's Government such questions.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that topic is kept under continual review. Although the question is normally asked in the context of the Government making time available for debate, there are many other opportunities that the House possesses. It so happens that next Monday we have energy questions. If the very point that the hon. Gentleman now raises cannot be put then, it would be a reflection on his ingenuity, which I know he well possesses.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I press the Leader of the House to turn his attention to the prayer in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the Housing Benefits Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 1984, No. 1965? Can we have an assurance that there will be an early debate on the prayer? Also, it is about time that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland came to the House and made a statement about the effects that are being inflicted on the Scottish education system by the current industrial dispute in the teaching profession in Scotland.

Mr. Biffen: In respect of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall certainly look into that matter and be in touch with him. On the second point, about the teaching dispute in Scotland, I shall of course represent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that there should be a statement on the matter.

Mr. Michael Latham: Since the official consultation period for the limited list of drugs ends next Thursday, will my right hon. Friend ensure that on Monday week the Secretary of State for Social Services comes to the House to make a statement on his revised proposals, as the original draft list was totally unsatisfactory?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly put that request to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House reflect further on his answer about the mining dispute? Will he concede that one might take one of two views? One is that the issue is of such importance that it should be ventilated in the forum of the nation, which is the House of Commons, despite what happened in another place yesterday. The second view is that the issue is so delicate that we should have a vow of silence by everybody. If the right hon. Gentleman takes the latter view, because he is being obdurate in hot conceding a debate, will he give an assurance that there will be no public statements over the weekend such as his own at Bathgate last weekend? We have had a proliferation of statements, but the right hon. Gentleman attacked the miners when they had no opportunity to reply. If we are going to have statements from Ministers and interference in the dispute, the place for them to speak is here, which is why we should have a debate here.

Mr. Biffen: At Bathgate — or Livingston, to be precise — I contributed a measured and charitable comment, the tone of which I commend to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that this morning in Sheffield the full executive of the NUM went into debate having let it be known that it would come to negotiations without any preconditions and that during the time those people were in there, and even when they emerged, they still did not know that the Government had laid down the most important precondition of the lot—a fundamental precondition? They asked the miners to sign a document saying that the 11-month strike was a waste of time and admitting defeat. That is the precondition. I can see the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) nodding in agreement at what I have said. Even the Minister is smiling as I speak, giving the game away about what the Government are really doing. As a matter of urgency, can we now have a debate, or is the Minister going to hold off until the Prime Minister has intensified and deepened the problem once again?

Mr. Biffen: My smile was but a wry reflection on how unfair it was that I should ever expect the hon. Gentleman truly to reflect the dispositions and temperament of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That being so, I found the premise—

Mr. Flannery: It is a bit difficult.

Mr. Biffen: That remark proves my point. The hon. Gentleman's premise did not justify the conclusion that he drew.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is it not demeaning to Parliament that, despite the fact that it is possible to debate the coal mining dispute on television, in the press and in public meetings throughout


the country, the Government refuse to have a debate in the House in Government time? The only debate we have had so far has been as a result of one Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to argue that this is a topic of such seriousness as to require a debate in Government time, and I keep that proposition under constant review. Equally I am entitled to say that it is a topic that comes to the House in many guises, in many forms and on many days, and it will certainly be with us on Monday.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that none of the friends of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) should be allowed to deflect or deter the democratic process anywhere? Will he further accept that many of us believe that yesterday's proceedings on television were interesting and successful? Will he guarantee that, when the other place has concluded its experiment, we too can debate this matter?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Biffen: This may be the occasion for a measured, low-profile response to the drama that took place down the road. It is far too early to make a judgment on what has occurred. On the other hand, my hon. Friend is right to say that this will be a material factor in the debates that we have about whether or not television is allowed into the House of Commons. All this will take a period that will reflect the broad mood of the House.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider one aspect of the call which I made in the House yesterday for a debate on the current problem in the mining industry? The Government have emphatically rejected and condemned the decision of the European Assembly to consider the coal strike. They have rightly argued that this is a matter for the Westminster Parliament, rather than for the European Assembly. Given that response, is it not reasonable for us to suggest that the Government should act consistently and arrange for the Westminster Parliament to consider in debate that which they felt inappropriate for the Assembly in Strasbourg?

Mr. Biffen: I think that what the Assembly in Strasbourg had in mind was something more challenging than mere debate. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I keep this matter under consideration.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be unfortunate if the impression were to be given that it is only the Left wing of the Labour party that thinks that the House should debate the miners' strike? Are not the points made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) extremely pertinent — points about the rights of those who have been balloted and the right of people to be protected from intimidation? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the country and the House that the Official Opposition have ample opportunities, such as Supply days, one of which is due to take place on Monday week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party wants to debate the miners' strike, all that the Leader of the Opposition has to do is to nominate Monday week, 4 February, as the day for that debate?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. That is why I am giving a relatively generous response to all the points that are put to me on this subject.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House explain why, if the Government claim that they have such a strong case in respect of the mining dispute, they do not present the House of Commons with an opportunity to debate the issue in their time? Then they could put the case that they put in the media on other occasions. There is a contradiction. If they had such a strong case and wanted to knock the Labour Opposition about, they would use the opportunity several times over. Is not the truth of the matter that the Tory Government are frightened to have the matter debated in their time, for the very good reason that some of us would be able to point out that the cost of the strike is causing a debilitating drain upon the pound sterling? According to stockbrokers, it is costing £100 million a week. We would be able to point out as well that, if it is right for the National Coal Board and the Government to call upon the National Union of Mineworkers to give a written undertaking about uneconomic pits, we could quite properly call upon the National Coal Board to give a written undertaking to review the closure proposals that it made in the first place.

Mr. Biffen: The contribution of the hon. Gentleman makes my dilemma clear. I am asked about parliamentary involvement in the coal disupute in terms of providing a debate in Government time. That is a proposition which I keep under consideration, but I am also aware that there are plenty of other opportunities whereby. week after week, the topic is brought before the House, and never so much as in questions relating to the next week's business when the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) makes speech after speech after speech. To say that they have any relation to next week's business is a touch of generosity on my part. It performs a role, because through his speeches we can trace the slow decline of the strike which was intended to transform society and the economy and is now on its last legs, thanks to the resistance of the industrial working class.

Mr. Harry Ewing: May I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) about the special needs payments to old people for heating? Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister has said three times from the Dispatch Box and that social service Ministers have repeatedly said that the criteria for triggering the payments are under review? Is he aware that a review announced in the height of the summer is a fraud perpetrated on old people? In these circumstances, will the Leader of the House ensure that the review is completed expeditiously and that we have a statement within the next week or 10 days giving the new criteria that will trigger these payments more generously.

Mr. Biffen: I have already undertaken to make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on this point, and that I undertook again this afternoon. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What has happened?"] Nothing has happened yet. I shall add to those representations the very point that has been made by the hon. Gentleman. I remind the House, incidentally, that the matter is the subject of the Adjournment debate next Wednesday.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence through the usual channels to urge the Opposition to announce the subject for debate on Monday week? If this announcement should herald an opportunity to debate the situation in the coal mines, this would not only be welcomed by the House because it would give us a chance to celebrate the large number of miners returning to work in Bolsover and elsewhere but would mean that the time of the House next week—

Mr. Skinner: They are not on 10 per cent. commission in the back pocket, like you.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Skinner: I am not withdrawing it.

Mr. Yeo: If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Fortunately, I did not hear.

Mr. Yeo: If the hon. Member for Bolsover was receiving 10 per cent. for every miner who returned to work in his constituency he would be an extremely rich man.

Mr. Skinner: Taking money off charities.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Skinner: No, I will not withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) ask a question of the Leader of the House, not of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that much of the time of the House next week would be saved because we would not have to listen to dreary applications under Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is very sensitive to the moods of the House.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Given that the Prime Minister referred again at Question Time this afternoon to the dispute in the coal industry as being about uneconomic capacity, when the original target that she and her Government set—of saving £200 million—has been exceeded 20 or 25 times, how can the Leader of the House justify his repeated statements that this Chamber is supposed to be the epitome of democracy and a national debating chamber when he and his Government consistently refuse to put the case in a debate in which the Prime Minister could lead off at the Dispatch Box and to which the official Opposition could respond?

Mr. Biffen: I shall bear in mind the request that a debate should be mounted with the Prime Minister in the lead.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Bearing in mind the disgraceful demonstration which took place in the Strangers Gallery of another place, apparently with the approval and connivance of some Opposition Members, and bearing in mind that that followed the entertainment of a convicted terrorist in the Palace of Westminster by a Member of the Opposition, can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate to consider the abuse by some hon. Members of the privileges that they enjoy?

Mr. Biffen: Certainly I have been given no information to suggest that the disorder was mounted with the

connivance of Members of the House. If any points of substance arise from the incident, they should be referred to the Services Committee.

Mr. Ron Brown: What is more—

Mr. John Browne: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very close, but I called Mr. Ron Brown.

Mr. Ron Brown: What is more important—elected dictatorship or parliamentary democracy? If it is parliamentary democracy, why do we not have a debate on the miners' struggle? Why do we not have a debate on the devastating effects on the Scottish economy. in view of the misery and hardship that the Government are causing? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give his hon. Friends an opportunity to speak up? Likewise, we will speak up for our friends.

Mr. Biffen: No one can have serious doubts that this is other than a parliamentary democracy when they consider the turmoil and sweat that we have getting reasonable parliamentary majorities week in, week out. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said about future parliamentary debates.

Mr. Speaker: Now, Mr. John Browne.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that a number of my constituents are resentful of what they feel is interference by the recent edict of the European Court regarding corporal punishment in schools? For how much longer, they ask, must we remain subject to a court which, rather than adjudicate the law, now seeks to impose its personal opinions on the internal affairs of sovereign nations? May we have a debate on this treaty?

Mr. Biffen: I can offer no early debate on the treaty which has, prescribed the jurisdiction for the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill, but I look forward very much to the success of my hon. Friend in the Adjournment debate in which we can test the proposition that national sovereignty means freedom from supra national rule.

Mr. Robert Parry: Following the reference by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to human rights in Chile, has the Leader of the House noted early-day motion 307 about the repression of trade unions in El Salvador, which has been signed by more than 50 hon. Members?
[That this House is greatly concerned at the arrest of Salvador Chavez Escalante, General Secretary of the F.S.R., two days before the congress of the F.S.R., Trade Union Federation of his union by the national police force of El Salvador; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make urgent representations to President Duarte for Señor Escalante's release and to end the repression of the trade union movement in El Salvador.]
Will the Government make urgent representations to President Duarte asking for the immediate release of Mr. Escalante, the general secretary of the FSR?

Mr. Biffen: I have already told the Leader of the Opposition that I would refer the matter concerning Chile to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. If it would be within the fraternity of the Labour party, perhaps I might include the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Stokes: Further to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) about the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill, many of us do not want a debate about the subject but want it cancelled altogether. Is it not a most extraordinary measure for a Tory Government to bring forward? Does this ancient democracy require lessons in human rights from Europeans?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is no. The answer to the first part—I say this with the disapproving eye upon me of the Patronage Secretary—is is that my hon. Friend will have the best of both worlds, a debate and a vote.

Mr. Max Madden: Is the Leader of the House aware that, on Thursday of last week, the coldest day in Bradford for 20 years, when the temperature was well below freezing, a 95-year-old woman was removed from the Thornton View hospital by the Bradford district health authority, which is engaged in a desperate bid to close the hospital by the end of the month? As the authority is planning to remove further very elderly patients from the hospital today and tomorrow, and as it is snowing in Bradford at this moment, will the right hon. Gentleman contact health Ministers to ask them to do what they have so far refused, which is to request the health authority not to remove any more elderly patients from the hospital at least until the weather improves?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, I shall certainly do that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places to put a question to the Leader of the House but I ask them to put their questions briefly.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: May I, as I always do, Mr. Speaker, take the advice of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) and come to the help of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House? If the Opposition are not granted a second day's debate on Stansted, perhaps he will use his normal suave powers to have an untelevised debate on the miners' strike instead? Alternatively, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) suggested, having taken a caning, perhaps we could have a debate on the miners' strike instead of one on the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill.

Mr. Biffen: To be described by my hon. and learned Friend as suave is something that I should like to reflect upon, as I shall on the other advice that he offered in his question.

Mr. Roland Boyes: In view of the report of progress in the talks between Mr. Ned Smith and Mr. Peter Heathfield and Mr. Eaton's positive statement on the media this morning, followed by Mr. MacGregor's statement, in the light of the refusal of the Prime Minister to answer the questions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and bearing in mind especially the right hon. Lady's use of "we", will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Energy to explain to the House what interference the Government have caused in the possible talks between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board in the

past 24 hours? Many of those I represent believe that the Prime Minister is acting in her own selfish self-interest rather than in the intersts of the nation.

Mr. Biffen: The Government's position on this important but relatively narrow issue is clear. However, if the hon. Gentleman is not happy with it, he has all the opportunities that are presented by Question Time on Monday.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British information technology industry accepts the principles and objectives of the COCOM agreement but is becoming increasingly concerned at its scope and operation and with the way in which the United States Government are imposing their own Export Administration Act in defiance of our national sovereignty? Will he give the House an opportunity as a matter of urgency to debate this subject? Pending such a debate, will he give an undertaking that no new regulations under the COCOM agreement will be introduced?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises a highly significant issue. Although I can offer no promise of an early debate, I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Chris Smith: Has the Leader of the House had time to read early-day motion No. 301 on the dangerous phenomenon of jury vetting?
[That this House expresses its deep concern about the use of jury-vetting and the holding of trials in secret, where it is clear that no issues of genuine national security are at stake; and believes that the processes of justice, especially where there is keen public interest in a case, should be as open and free from political interference as possible.]
As we are prohibited by the rules of the House from discussing jury vetting in the specific case of Clive Ponting, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Attorney-General tells us either this week or next week what principles are established for jury vetting and the guidance that he has established on who should be excluded from sitting on juries in the Ponting case and other cases? Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend to make a statement about this extremely worrying development?

Mr. Biffen: As with so many topics that have been raised on next week's business, this is one of the utmost significance. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House at least agree to postpone the debate on the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill until it has been possible to identify one person involved directly in education who supports it and until the Government can give a clear assurance that the parents of children who have taken assisted places at private schools will not have to identify themselves to the school and to other pupils by taking their names off the register?

Mr. Biffen: All my instincts tell me that it will be highly desirable if the Bill is debated on Monday. I hope that my hon. Friend will be present to make a trenchant speech.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As our present stock of battlefield nuclear weapons are said by the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO to be unsafe even before they are used, does the Leader of the House not think that there should be a statement on this very important issue? Does he accept that before the Government agree to further production of these nuclear weapons there should be a full debate in the House on the matter?

Mr. Biffen: If the position were as unambiguous as the hon. Lady describes, I am certain that there would be a tremendous desire for such a debate, but it is just possible that the situation is otherwise. However, I shall most certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence so that he may take account of what she has said.

Mr. Tony Favell: Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House recall that, contrary to the express wishes of many hon. Members, the Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill was debated before the inspector's report on Stansted was published? In view of the fate of the Bill in Committee, is it not even more important now that the Stansted issue is debated on the Floor of the House and made the subject of a proper vote? If that does not happen, the regions will regard the absence of a debate as an outrage, especially in view of the enormous economic importance of Stansted to the regions.

Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. I assure him that I am fully conscious of all the difficulties that will arise in any conceivable course of action. It was judged that the best course to be pursued in the handling of the business would be broadly that which has been decided upon.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House studied early-day motion No. 311, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay)?
[That this House notes that in the early hours of Tuesday 22nd January a van driven by Cruise Watch Women, which had sighted a United States Cruise missile convoy, was surrounded by police at a junction on the B3098, and that the police broke the side windows and windscreen of the van with a crowbar, caused injury to a passenger who is still receiving medical treatment and then pushed the van against a post, causing damage to the vehicle; and expresses its horror and condemnation that this incident and similar ones have taken place as part of the increasingly indiscriminate attempts to intimidate the peace movement.]
The motion describes an attack on a group of women who sighted a cruise missile early this week. The attack was made by a group of police who damaged the women's vehicle severely. The windows were broken and glass went inside the vehicle. One of the women was forced to swallow glass from the broken windscreen. She is still in hospital receiving treatment for the injuries that were caused by that.
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is necessary for the Secretary of State for Defence to explain to the House why cruise missile carriers are wandering around the lanes of Berkshire? Secondly, does he believe that the Home Secretary should make a statement on the use of the police in following those who are concerned about the presence of cruise missiles on our soil and on the use of the police increasingly as a political arm of the Government against those who are opposed to Government policy?

Mr. Biffen: I am informed that the chief constable of Wiltshire is appointing an officer from an outside force to investigate these complaints. I shall refer the wider issues to my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: In view of the disgraceful scenes made last week in the House by Labour Members, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is staggering that the Opposition Front Bench do not have the bottle to use their Supply day to debate the dispute of some of the miners? Is he aware that Conservative Members who represent mining constituencies will be very happy to debate the issue in Opposition time or Government time so that we can draw to the attention of the House the trade union's repression of working miners?

Mr. Biffen: I recollect what the Chamber was like last Thursday and I am aware of what it has been since. I, like the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, sat at the feet of and drew inspiration from Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, as he now is. I think that we can both agree that a week is a long time.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I take up the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). Does my right hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of Members of the Parliamentary Labour Party over the past couple of weeks has left much to be desired and has caused those outside Parliament, especially the House of Commons, to form a bad opinion of us? Does he agree that if Labour Members regard the miners' dispute so seriously, it is rather strange that they did not ask yesterday for a debate on the issue instead of debating post office closures? Is it not strange also that they are not hinting at having a debate on the mining dispute on Monday week? Will my right hon. Friend meet the Leader of the Opposition and give the strongest possible hint that Back Bench Labour Members who are demanding such a debate should be heard? The House is sick to death of being disrupted by appalling requests which obviously delay the business of the House.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes pertinent observations, which will have widespread support among Conservative Back Benchers. My hon. Friend's observations will have been heard by the Leader of the Opposition, who has the prize within his gift of the Opposition clay on Monday week. Doubtless, his distilled wisdom will be apparent in what he eventually decides to do.

Debates (Government Time)

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it connected with Question Time?

Mr. Nellist: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is connected with Question Time.
Given your well-observed tolerance during the past 40 minutes in allowing questions to the Leader of the House about next week's business—this may or may not be some of the coded language to which reference was made a couple of days ago—and given your role as protector and guardian of the traditions and reputations of this Chamber, do you recall during your time as Speaker or before whether there has been any other subject or dispute in recent decades for which no time for debate was granted by the Government of the day?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that there is no code in my reply to the hon. Member. I allowed business questions to run on because I believe that is valuable Back-Bench time. Wherever possible, I allow Back Benchers who wish to put a question to the Leader of the House to do so.
While on my feet, may I make one further comment? The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said earlier that 18 applications had been made for debate under Standing Order No. 10. The right hon. Gentleman will know that one of those applications was, in fact, granted by me.
I think the whole House understands that I am tied by the provisions of Standing Order No. 10. Perhaps that is not so widely understood outside the Chamber. The truth of the matter is, as has been mentioned several times this afternoon, that I do not control Government business. Business is determined through the usual channels. There is a Opposition day virtually every week. In granting or turning down applications made under Standing Order No. 10, I am bound to have regard to other opportunities in the House to raise these matters. I must say to the House that I do not take all that kindly to the pressure under which I have been put recently.

Radioactive Waste (Disposal)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the disposal of low and intermediate radioactive wastes.
The House will recall that on 25 October 1983 I announced two things — a public consultation on the principles for assessing disposal facilities, and procedures for dealing with the possible sites which the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive had originally identified. These sites were at Billingham in Cleveland for deep disposal and at Elstow in Bedfordshire for less deep disposal. The House will remember that the deep depository would be for the longer-lived, intermediate-level wastes and, depending on the geology, would be at least 300 ft deep; the other facility, for shorter-lived wastes, would probably consist of concrete-lined trenches up to 60 ft deep, covered by a thick layer of concrete, and a mound of earth.
The final version of the assessment principles is published today, and I have placed copies in the Library and the Vote Office. The report on the consultation will be published shortly. The principles are now accompanied by detailed guidance about the environmental assessments which NIREX will be required to produce covering where and how waste would be disposed of. These will have to include discussion of alternative sites.
This brings me to the planning procedures. To ensure a fair comparison of alternative sites, I have decided that NIREX should be required to carry out geological investigations of at least three possible sites for each type of depository. Such investigations will require planning permission. I am therefore revising the procedures and now propose to ask Parliament to give these limited planning permissions by way of a special development order. These limited permissions, given only for geological investigation, would carry no presumption that permission would be granted for the actual development of any site. Before development could take place, a public inquiry would be held which would examine all the alternative sites and the environmental assessment for each site.
As regards the less deep facility for shorter-lived waste, which is the bulk of the waste to be dealt with, I have asked NIREX to select and announce as soon as possible at least two further sites for investigation in addition to Elstow. As for the deep facility for the longer-lived wastes, I have asked NIREX to start the search for alternative sites. Further work is, however, needed to review the technical options.
I am therefore asking the nuclear industry to do two things. First, in consultation with the radiochemical inspectorate and the nuclear installations inspectorate, the nuclear industry should continue to seek ways of improving the condition of intermediate-level wastes for disposal. Secondly, NIREX should take full account, in the choice of sites, of research into methods of containing the radioactivity in the wastes. The necessary studies are bound to take some time. To avoid a further period of uncertainty at Billingham, I have invited NIREX, and it has agreed, not to proceed further with that site.

Dr. John Cunningham: Why did the Secretary of State for the Environment not publish the


consultation documents, principles and environmental assessment advice before making his statement to the House? Would it not have been much better and more conducive to a well-informed discussion of these key issues if the House had had that information before it? Would that not have been in line with the conclusions and recommendation of the 10th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, which urged that there should be
a presumption in favour of unrestricted access for the public to information which the pollution control authorities obtain"?
The Royal Commission went on to support that recommendation. It is unacceptable for statements as controversial and sensitive as this to be made without the House having all the information that the Secretary of State has.
Does not the statement represent, in some respects at least, a retreat from the much-needed, long-term decisions on the disposal of radioactive waste? If geological investigation is again now thought to be necessary, why was the original Natural Environment Research Council programme abandoned by the present Administration? Given the admission by the Department of the Environment at the Sizewell inquiry of its underestimate of the size of the problem and the reduced capacity available at Drigg, what is the time scale of the new remit which the right hon. Gentleman has given NIREX? What is the right hon. Gentleman's latest estimate of the quantity of material likely to be generated and, therefore, disposed of? Would it not be better for NIREX, which I understand was set up to implement and make policy, to be given clearer advice from the Secretary of State about the type of site that the Government think would be most appropriate?
Clearly, the announcement by the Secretary of State of the decision on Billingham will be widely and universally welcomed on Teesside, by people in all parties and, I expect, by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Does not the experience at Billingham lead us to the conclusion that sites should be sought in remote areas and not near centres of high population? Although that will inevitably mean extra disposal costs, would that not be worth while if public acceptance of these activities is to be achieved?
In line with the recommendations in the Royal Commission's 10th report, should not the membership of NIREX and of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee be restructured to include representatives of local authorities, more independent scientific expertise and representatives of the trade unions and environmental bodies, so that much greater account can be taken of the wide-ranging public and scientific aspects of the work?
I recognise from my constituency experience that these are technically complicated and highly controversial matters, but is it not clear that, for the sake of the future of the nuclear industry, long-term decisions are urgently required? What is regrettable about the right hon. Gentleman's statement is that it puts off the day when those decisions are likely to be reached.

Mr. Jenkin: I believe that the statement will be widely seen as another step in the development of knowledge about the scientific and technical issues that are involved.
I am publishing the assessment principles today. It is only in the light of the decisions on the statement that the results of the consultation will be published. I hope that

they will be published in about a fortnight. We have already made it clear that we accept the spirit of the Royal Commission's advice that there should be a presumption in favour of openness. That is why we are publishing both the principles and—

Dr. Cunningham: Why has the right hon. Gentleman not published them before making the statement?

Mr. Jenkin: Whether one makes a statement first, or publishes and makes a statement afterwards, is almost a question of courtesy to the House.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are retreating from long-term decisions. That is not so. The NERC study to which the hon. Gentleman referred was on an entirely different operation. It was about the search for the very deep holes, not for the low and intermediate-level waste, but for the high-level waste. As knowledge increased the decision was taken—I believe that it has been universally welcomed—that it would be sensible to wait 50 years to allow the high-level heat-producing waste to lose a substantial part of its immediate radioactivity before dealing with it.
It was also envisaged that there would be geological investigations for both the deep and the less deep facilities for the low and intermediate wastes. Today I have said only that we can approach that problem in a somewhat more effective way.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Sizewell inquiry about Drigg. One of our problems is that the Drigg depository, owned by BNFL, is filling up. There is therefore some need to go ahead with the less deep facility for the low-level waste. That is why I have asked NIREX at once to institute a search for two alternative sites.
On the question of quantities, there has been no change since the Department's witnesses gave evidence to the Sizewell inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman advocates giving clearer advice to NIREX. That is precisely what the environmental assessment principles are intended to do. They will outline what is needed for each site.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the announcement about Billingham. I understand the considerable anxieties that were roused in that part of the country. I regret that the uncertainty was necessary, and I hope that the fact that Billingham is no longer on the list will be welcome.
We have under active consideration the appointment of members of trade unions to the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. Appointments to NIREX are not a matter for me, but we are considering whether it would be appropriate for such people to be appointed to that body.

Sir Hugh Rossi: The Select Committee on the Environment is about to embark upon an inquiry into the disposal of radioactive waste. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will be prepared to await the report of that Committee before reaching any final conclusions on these matters?

Mr. Jenkin: I should like to examine precisely what would be involved. I am sure that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that NIREX should not proceed with the search for alternative sites to Elstow, because we need to be able to consider Elstow alongside at least two other sites. However, the consideration of technical studies to which


I referred, and of the options referred to in the Holliday report, is likely to take six months or more. I imagine that the Select Committee will report before then.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am grateful to the Secretary of State—as are those of my colleagues from Cleveland who, because of other parliamentary duties, are not able to be here—for his clear statement. We will study the principles carefully, and we look forward to the publication of the report on those principles.
My constituents will be easier in their minds this evening now that democracy — a commodity about which we hear so much but see so little—has at long last been evidenced in the case of Billingham.
Now that the spectre has been removed, Cleveland's local authorities will be anxious to attract again the timid investors and developers who were scared off by the original proposals. The authorities' cry will be, "Come to canny Cleveland, because we can cope." However, some disquiet may result from the announcement that planning permission—if that was the term used—will be granted by Parliament. Does the Secretary of State realise the worry that may be caused by that removal of a role from the local authority? Is the right hon. Gentleman also fully aware of the manner in which the campaign has been conducted by NIREX, not only in my constituency, but in communities throughout the north-east over the past 15 months?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not go into too much detail when asking a question.

Mr. Cook: I would have been brief, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that there has been an agreement to withdraw the original proposal, but would it not be wise for the structure and composition of both NIREX and RWMAC to be reconsidered, so as to allow, in line with the decisions reached last week in Strasbourg, for the representation of conservationists and environmentalists? That would balance the inbred views of those with purely in-house industrial interests.

Mr. Jenkin: I pay warm tribute to the manner in which the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), and other hon. Members on both sides of the House representing that area, their local authorities and their communities conducted their representations on this matter. No one was in any doubt about the anxieties that had been raised. However, there is no need for people to be afraid about the safety of the disposal procedures. I recognise that the fears exist, but when the hon. Gentleman studies the assessment principles and the environment assessment arrangements he will see that there will be no chance of any such disposal sites being a threat to a local population.
The special development order procedure is envisaged only for the preliminary test drilling that will provide the information for the planning inquiry. The local authorities would make an important contribution to the planning inquiry, and no development would take place until that full inquiry had been held.
There are already, on the advisory committee, very distinguished people with a real understanding of the environment, and I am considering new appointments to

that body. NIREX is an executive body, but I am considering whether I should ask for other appointments to be made to it.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement as a vast improvement on that of 31 October, may I ask him for three assurances: first, that the evidence adduced before public inquiries will be considered carefully by the inquiry and by my right hon. Friend and that the best site will be selected; secondly, that the prime consideration will be public safety, in whichever locality; and thirdly, that there will be further research into the behaviour of radionuclides outside waste repositories to ensure that they do not migrate into the food chain?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about my statement. I think that I can give him the three assurances for which he has asked. Evidence given to the public inquiry must be a matter for those who give evidence, and the report must be a matter for the inspector who hears the evidence. In the end, decisions will be made by Ministers in the light of the evidence and of the report, and we shall ensure that the best site is selected.
Public safety is paramount. The entire panoply of advisory committees and the procedures that I have announced that we shall develop are designed to ensure that there is public safety and, even more important, that the public can be convinced that public safety is paramount.
As to my hon. Friend's third point, yes, indeed, this is precisely one of the studies which is currently in hand. We are continuing research to try to improve the methods of packaging radioactivity in waste to minimise the problem to which my hon. Friend drew attention.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents and everyone else on Teesside will be delighted with his decision that Billingham is no longer to be considered as a site for dumping nuclear waste? I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for listening to the representations that have been made by a broad spectrum of opinion on Teesside. It is a triumph for democracy and reasoned argument that they have responded in this way. Will the criteria which the Secretary of State has published today take into account, as a result of experiences on Teesside, social considerations as well as environmental and technical ones in making judgments on future sites?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps I might say on behalf of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that when he visited the area the atmosphere was fraught, but the manner in which his meetings and his address outside the town hall were conducted was a triumph of democracy for local people. It was a model of how these things should be handled.
The principles and the physical and social environment are matters for the planning inquiry. These matters will be dealt with in the environment assessment statements which will have to be produced in regard to each of the sites in respect of which a planning application is made. The assessment principles essentially concern the containment of radioactivity. They are quite separate, but both are highly relevant to the inquiry on a decision about any site.

Sir Hector Munro: The decision about Billingham is welcome, but will my right hon. Friend give


me an assurance that he will not reconsider sites for which applications from NIREX or the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority have already been turned down, such as in Dumfries and Galloway, as we do not want to go through all the arguments again?

Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention to resume the search for the type of deep depositories for high-level waste which I know cause much anxiety in his constituency. It has now been decided with universal approval that high-level waste should be left in controlled and monitored storage for 50 years before there is any attempt to dispose of it.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the light of experience, people are sceptical about the kind of assurance that he has given today? Is he also aware that nowhere in the world has anyone found a safe and sure way of storing nuclear waste for the long term? Is he further aware that what he said about maintaining the highly toxic waste on the surface until it has cooled down was tried at Windscale, now Sellafield, and that if he examines the records he will find that a major leak of that highly toxic waste was located in December 1978? Is he aware also that if the cost of storing nuclear waste were included in the cost of producing nuclear power, nuclear power would not be economic?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for those and many other reasons, the United States has not ordered a nuclear power station since 1977, and has cancelled 90 of them? Does he agree that all of these factors ought to be in the public domain when he comes along with his proposals for getting people to accept the storage of nuclear waste in their areas?

Mr. Jenkin: I prefer to accept the advice of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, which, in its 10th report, especially apropos acid deposition, recommended that one of the solutions would be a modest increase in the nuclear programme. That is the Government's policy.

Mr. Benn: That view has been overtaken by events.

Mr. Jenkin: I have given the Royal Commission's opinion. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views. He said that nowhere was safe. I challenge that assertion. Some other countries which generate nuclear power have made more progress than we have in the deep deposition of nuclear waste. There are examples which we would do well to study.
As to the storage of high-level waste on the surface, it is precisely because of the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the 1978 incident—that BNFL's policy is now to use the process of vitrification so that it is stored in solid form and can be monitored so that the chances of escape are negligible. I must take issue with what the right hon. Gentleman said about that.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Does my right hon. Friend realise how grave is the anxiety of my constituents and people of Bedfordshire about the proposal to dump nuclear waste in their midst? Is he aware of how sceptical they are about scientific assurances that there is absolutely no danger, and how that presses for the choice of a remote site? In that context, I welcome the proposal that at least two extra sites will be considered. Might I suggest that there should be three or four other sites, bearing in mind the fact that it is sensible to use the special

development order procedure? Might I also suggest that there should be proper consideration of alternative methods of storage and disposal?
Although we are glad for the people of Billingham, might I ask that sites for consideration should not be confined to those which happen to be owned by the partners in NIREX, such as the Central Electricity Generating Board? This is a national problem, and if the only remote site with the right geological capability happens not to be owned by NIREX, we should not shrink from making a compulsory purchase if necessary.

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely understand, and have a good deal of sympathy with, my hon. and learned Friend's constituents who face the prospect that Elstow might be one of the sites that is investigated and therefore the subject of a planning inquiry. It is part of my purpose, and of those who advise me in this matter, to try to restore, if restore is the right word, public confidence in the scientific evidence. That is why it is most important that there should be a full planning inquiry before any of the facilities are built.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his recognition of the need for a number of alternative sites. He will have noticed that I said, "at least three sites". If NIREX has more, it is competent to produce more.
As to alternative methods of storing and disposing of nuclear waste, my hon. and learned Friend will have read the Holliday report, which was produced for the Department and the Trades Union Congress. Professor Holliday and his colleagues argued that there should be a restatement of the options for storing and disposing of nuclear waste. I hope that we shall have that in six months' time, or a little longer. I hope that that meets my hon. and learned Friend's request.
I noted very carefully that my hon. and learned Friend said that we should not confine ourselves to sites in the ownership of the partners of NIREX. That has not been the practice hitherto, and we are certainly not giving such a direction now to NIREX.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I fully appreciate the importance of this subject to hon. Members and their constituents and I shall ensure that every hon. Member who rises is able to put a question, but I ask for briefer questions, because they will lead to briefer answers. I must have regard to the subsequent business.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware that we shall never convince the British public that nuclear waste is not dangerous? The British public will always believe that it is dangerous. Whatever action the Government take, they must start with that understanding of public opinion.
Is not the only answer to the problem to seek international collaboration over a disposal site, perhaps in the south Atlantic or the Pacific, so that all countries with a nuclear capability can transfer their waste to that common site? There should also be an international inspectorate to monitor storage at that common site. Would that not be a far more adventurous and sensible way to deal with the problem? Is it not fair to say that, because gipsy sites are never accepted by the electorate, the electorate will not accept, either, nuclear disposal sites in their constituencies?

Mr. Jenkin: I have never said — indeed, no responsible person could possibly say — that nuclear waste is not dangerous. Of course it is dangerous. It has to be handled with extreme care, particularly intermediate and high-level waste. What the scientists and those who advise us are entitled to say is that the inbuilt technical and procedural safeguards, the extent to which they are monitored by those who are not involved with the industry and the advice of committees that are independent of the industry, reduce the dangers to an acceptable level. The risks are kept to the absolute minimum. This country still has, quite rightly, a great deal of confidence in the nuclear industry. It is to be found not least among those who for many years now have lived next to some of the most successful nuclear power stations in the world.
As to the suggestion that we should wait for an international solution to the problem, I do not believe that that would be a responsible course to adopt. It may be that in my lifetime, and in the lifetime of the hon. Gentleman, something of that kind will happen, but in the meantime we have a responsibility to deal with the waste that is accumulating, in particular the low-level waste. That is why I believe that the Government are right to proceed along the lines indicated in my statement.

Mr. John Carlisle: I endorse the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell). We share the delight of those who live around Billingham and congratulate them upon their campaign. However, my right hon. Friend must accept that there is great disappointment and dismay in Bedfordhire this evening about his decision to pursue the Elstow site. Can my right hon. Friend say why sites in heavily populated areas are still being considered?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's statement. I realise that it must be disappointing for the people who live in and around Elstow that this site is still regarded as having a potential for the storage of low-level waste, but until this matter has been properly examined I believe that it would be irresponsible not to press ahead with it. However, alternative sites will now have to be identified and, after due parliamentary proceedings, geological studies undertaken, and the whole matter will then be subject to a planning inquiry. That is the best safeguard that the constituents of my hon. Friend can have that their interests will be properly examined and that all factors bearing upon safety will be properly examined.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I add our congratulations and thanks to those of the Secretary of State to the people of Billingham, to BAND, to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and the local authorities and others, including ICI, for their sterling efforts which the Department has recognised by this announcement?
May we have an assurance that, before any further steps are taken, proper consideration will be given to the merits of storage rather than disposal, as the Holliday report envisages, the presumption being that at the moment storage is safer than disposal?
Secondly, may we have an assurance that the time scale thereafter will not result in the inevitable blight that descends upon whole communities once an announcement is made that there is to be a geological investigation followed by the special development order procedure—I

have reservations about that — and a public inquiry, which may lead to many years of uncertainty? If we are to store nuclear waste in this country — perhaps we ought to try to move away from that—it is important that decisions should be made speedily, but only after sites have been found which are acceptable to everybody concerned.

Mr. Jenkin: I understand entirely the desire that the procedures should move with due expedition. However, it is probably more important that care should be taken at every stage to ensure that, so far as is humanly possible, the best and the right decisions are taken.
As to the balance between storage and disposal, that is precisely what the studies in which we are now engaged, following the Holliday report, are intended to bring out for public consideration. I hope that we will have the results of those studies within six months or so.
As to trying to remove anxiety and blight, it is very important that the public should feel reassured that there will be opportunities for public discussion. Without in any way wishing at this stage to put a gloss on the environmental asessment principles that are to published, I take the point that the social and environmental problems are always likely to be greater in areas that contain a higher population. That is a matter of common sense. However, we must now wait for NIREX to identify its sites. I can then put before the House a special development order, with necessarily limited powers for geological investigation.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of his statement, Teesside will heave a collective sigh of relief at being freed by the Government from NIREX and all its works? Will he confirm, clear and loud, that, whether or not any blight has been caused, Teesside remains an attractive location for investment, not least as a result of the efforts of other Government agencies, such as English Estates?

Mr. Jenkin: That is certainly so. I was the Secretary of State for Industry who decided, under the old regime, that Teesside should have what was then special development area status. It seemed to us that it was highly desirable to attract industry to this area. However, there is no suggestion of the Billingham site being abandoned because it is regarded as being unsafe in any way: it is because we do not want to prolong the uncertainty that may be caused while the studies continue. There is not the same urgency about the identification and construction of a deep facility. Rather than let the uncertainty hang over Billingham any longer, it seemed to be much better to back away from it altogether and say that, wherever else it may be, it will not be at Billingham.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I welcome the lifting of the cloud from Billingham, but the cloud has not disappeared. Although it is moving away from heavily built-up areas like Billingham—I am delighted that it is, and I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) — it is moving elsewhere. I suspect, because of the comments of the Secretary of State, that it is moving to less populated areas. Therefore, one has to look at an area like Northumberland, with its low population.
In reply to a question relating to Dumfries and Galloway, the Secretary of State suggested that that site


would not now be considered for the deposit of high level nuclear waste. However, is it possible to infer that that site might be examined because it might be capable of storing intermediate and low-level nuclear waste?

Mr. Jenkin: I understand the point that the hon. Member is making, but there is an inescapable responsibility upon the nuclear industry, and then upon me as the Secretary of State charged with responsibility for monitoring the disposal of nuclear waste, to continue to make progress. When, therefore, the hon. Gentleman says that the problem will move elsewhere, that is absolutely inevitable. However, we want to find the right solution. We cannot just back away from it, shut our eyes to it and hope that it will go away. It will not. Therefore, we have to deal with it.
I hazard a guess that it would be unlikely that NIREX would wish to look into areas in Scotland that were the subject of deep drilling for high-level waste for the kind of depositories that are needed for low and intermediate level waste.

Mr. Richard Holt: I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the number of times over the past 15 months that I have asked for a statement on this subject. I welcome it personally and on behalf of my constituents. I am sure that there will be great delight in Cleveland that Billingham will no longer worry us in this context. The activities of BAND, and, associated with BAND, the media, which were not allowed to join BAND but which gave us great support, have shown what a united area can do, even when there are deep political and philosophical divides. It bodes well for democracy in the future, and it also enhances and underlines the words of Cleveland's greatest politician yesterday, that with unity one can achieve a great deal more than with discord.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and I endorse what he said about the responsible way in which the campaign was conducted.

Mr. Kevin Barron: May I ask for an assurance from the Minister that any low and intermediate nuclear waste that is disposed of in any area after a special development order will be only that produced in Britain, so that we can lose the label that we are acquiring rapidly of being the dumping ground of the world for nuclear waste?

Mr. Jenkin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, perhaps, the most important contract, that with the Japanese for the reprocessing of their nuclear fuel at the Sellafield plant, has an express provision that they must take back the waste and deal with it themselves. I imagine that that will continue to be the policy of the energy industry, although that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and the industries for which he is responsible.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that my constituents will be interested in the guess he hazarded that NIREX will not be interested in the disposal of intermediate waste in the deep drilling areas in my constituency to which he referred? Has he noticed that, during the past nine months, 50 per cent, of Scotland's electricity needs has been provided by nuclear power? That was made possible by the policies pursued by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The humbug that the right hon. Gentleman

has expressed this afternoon does not help us in dealing with the problem of the measured research that is necessary to dispose of waste that has accumulated under the policies of successive Governments.

Mr. Jenkin: Accumulated waste is part of the problem with which we must deal. I referred earlier to the Japanese contract and the arrangements for the reprocessing plant at Sellafield. It was indeed the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who was responsible for the decisions in that regard. That fact sits ill beside the remarks that he now makes on the subject of nuclear power. In common with all our major partners, we are now developing our nuclear resources, partly in order 10 reduce the deposition of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides, which are the consequence of the burning of fossil fuels.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of my interest in the matter. I agree wholeheartedly with two of my hon. Friends who said, as I believe he has said, that low and intermediate-level waste must be stored in remote areas because of the undoubted fact that, in spite of the scientific knowledge that has convinced many people, there are those who are not so convinced. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that that is a difficult problem which requires constant attention and not a cavalier attitude on the part of Government who say that we must have nuclear power and that is all there is to it.
The House must appreciate that if no further power stations were fuelled by nuclear energy we would still have to dispose of the waste that we have accumulated by the production of nuclear power during the past 30 or 40 years. In the search for sites, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that when the results come forward there will be sufficient accommodation for the low and intermediate-level waste which has been produced? How far has the vitrification process gone?

Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman tables a question, I shall give him the answer. On the basis of my imperfect information, I should not like to hazard an answer which might be inaccurate.
It is the primary responsibility of NIREX, as the executive arm of the nuclear industry, to satisfy itself that it will have sites at which to dispose of the substantial quantities of waste, particularly low-level waste, which have accumulated and which will continue to accumulate. It will obviously be a matter for the planning inquiry to satisfy itself that the size of the site will be sufficient for the purpose and that we shall not have to proliferate sites all over the country in order to deal with the waste.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's important point that it is the constant duty of those who carry responsibility in such matters to ensure that the public understand the issues involved to the best of their ability. Sometimes the technicalities are not easy for people without a scientific education to understand. Those of us who are laymen, and who have to cross-examine our own scientific advisers, may sometimes find it easier to communicate with the public because we have had to force the scientists to put the matter into words that we can understand. I always think that if I can understand something, everybody should be able to understand it.

Mr. Tony Blair: May I say on behalf of the constituents of Sedgefield that they will welcome with


obvious relief the decision not to put nuclear waste at Billingham? May I also extend our thanks to everybody in the BAND campaign and in the campaign led in this House so ably and energetically by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)?
Will the Secretary of State and others who have responsibility for such matters try to learn from the experience of Billingham that the perception is a" important as the reality and that, whatever the scientfic and rational basis, that is a solid reason why one should consider remote areas with low populations rather than those with high populations?

Mr. Jenkin: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about perception. It is part of the business of politicians to try to understand the perception of those whom we represent and to handle public affairs in a way which people can understand and accept. That is important, and nowhere more so than in the controversial area of nuclear policy. I do not want to add to what I have said about remote sites.

Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State may well be aware that some concern has been expressed in my constituency about proposals by the private company ENSEC for the under-seabed disposal of nuclear waste, possibly at a site off the west coast of Orkney. Does the remit which the Secretary of State has given to NIREX include the possibility of under-seabed disposal? Axe there sufficient, indeed, any, planning procedures to deal with such disposal?

Mr. Jenkin: My statement today has dealt with landward disposal. Proposals have been made for the depositing of nuclear waste deep in the ocean bed on the continental shelf. That is still at an early stage of research. The question is currently the subject of study by RWMAC.

Mr. Stuart Bell: May I, on behalf of my constituents at Middlesbrough, over the water from Billingham, say how much we welcome the Secretary of State's statement and the felicitous way in which he has put it to the House. The campaign at Billingham is the second in which I have been involved concerning nuclear waste. The first related to the Cheviot hills. I understand

and sympathise with the problem of having to store nuclear waste in urban areas and villages where people live. It is a great joy to the people of Cleveland and Teesside that the nuclear blight has been removed. We hope that the Government will now help us in removing a second blight —unemployment.

Mr. Jenkin: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think that the last part of his question was wide of the statement.

Mr. Chris Smith: Do not the Secretary of State's statement and the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) reveal that there will always be extremely strong public opposition to the disposal of nuclear waste in rural areas? Do they not also reveal that that makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify acceptable sites for such disposal? In the light of that, will the Secretary of State, with his colleagues, now reconsider the 25 per cent, target for electricity production by nuclear power, which the Government currently have in mind? Surely, until we have acceptable and safe means of disposal, such a target should not be adopted by the Government.

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot accept that. Although it is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, there is widespread agreement that it is appropriate that we, like other countries, should proceed steadily with a nuclear power policy. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the problem of disposal of waste arouses considerable public difficulties. It is the responsibility of the Government not to shrink from that, but to seek to persuade the public that there is a need to dispose of waste, and to ensure that the procedures are such that the public can be reassured, as far as is humanly possible, that the final decisions are the right ones.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I now have four applications under Standing Order No. 10. I hope that the Scottish Members who have waited patiently for their debate will understand that the statement was of vital importance to their colleagues, some of whom are Scots. They will have until 11.30 pm for their debate, if they wish to take that time.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Martin Redmond: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Prime Minister's involvement in the mining dispute.
The Prime Minister has constantly misled the House during the past 10 months about the mining dispute. That is a serious matter and should be given priority over the normal business of the House. On many occasions during Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister stated that she and her Government would not involve themselves in the mining dispute, that the dispute was a matter only between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mine workers, and that the Government had no intention of becoming involved. Events during the past few days have made it clear that the Prime Minister and her Government are involved in the dispute. She has misled the House with her answers and brought disgrace and dishonour on her high office. Only by granting a debate can these charges be more fully explained and the Prime Minister be brought to task for misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Prime Minister's involvement in the mining dispute.
I hope that the hon. Member and the House will appreciate what I said a few minutes ago about the number of Standing Order No. 10 applications that are being made. I am bound to have to take into account the other opportunities in the House for discussing these important matters and also the negotiations which, I hope, are to get under way this weekend. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member said, but regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 today or on Monday and, therefore, cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Robert Parry: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the employment of private security companies by the National Coal Board during the miners' strike.
I do so because it has come to my attention that a private company called Burns International Security Services (U.K.) Ltd. advertised in the Liverpool Echo for people to be interviewed for jobs in security. I believe that the company came to Liverpool because of the massive unemployment there. I understand that the recruits were to be paid between £420 and £480 for 10 days' work over the Christmas and New Year period for protecting National Coal Board property. They were expected to cross picket lines, but no previous security experience was required, nor was any training to be given.
I know from information given to me that one recruit had just been released from prison after having served a

two-year sentence. I fully support the rehabilitation of prisoners and recognise the need to find them employment. However, I wonder whether such companies do not generally check an applicant's previous history. The recruit could have been in prison on a non-serious charge, but, equally, his offence could have been causing grievous bodily harm or some other form of violence. In view of allegations and counter-allegations of violence on picket lines, of the death of several miners, and of evidence of police brutality, it is disturbing and sinister to think that there is a small private army employed by the NCB for that sensitive work.
I wrote to Mr. MacGregor and the Secretary of State for Energy on 17 January, but to date I have received no reply. I received a written reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy on 21 January, which stated that the Government did not have a list of private security companies employed by the NCB. It is therefore urgent that we get that information, and have a full debate on the Floor of the House about whether the Government and the NCB support the employment of those organisations during the strike. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will accede to my application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member raises a different aspect of the coal industry dispute, namely,
the employment of private security companies by the National Coal Board during the miners' strike.
The hon. Member knows that the decision that I must take on these matters is whether applications should take precedence over the business set down for today or Monday. I listened with care to what he said, and I am sure that he will have further opportunities to raise the matter. I regret, therefore, that I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Alex Woodall: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation following the aborted talks this week between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mine workers.
Last Saturday, Sunday and Monday everyone in the country thought that talks were about to restart between the NCB and the NUM after they were aborted last October. That was widely forecast by the media, especially following a meeting held on Monday between Mr. Peter Heathfield of the NUM and Ned Smith of the NCB. We were led to believe that the meeting was to clear the way for a full meeting between the NCB and the full executive committee of the NUM without any specified agenda or preconditions. Suddenly on Tuesday, the talks were off. Almost simultaneously, the Secretary of State for Energy and the spokesman for the NCB announced that there had been no interference by the Government or by the Secretary of State for Energy. That happened before any accusations were made that there was interference.
We have had no opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Energy on the way in which the talks were aborted, which looks suspicious. As everyone had high hopes that talks could take place this week and the strike might be settled, it is imperative that this debate should take place. Questions on Thursdays to the Leader of the House, and a few questions on Tuesdays and Thursdays


to the Prime Minister are no substitute for a full debate. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will look favourably upon my application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation following the aborted talks this week between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.
Again, I in no way underestimate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's application. I hope that he and the House accept that this is a crucial moment in respect of negotiations that we hope will be renewed. I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House this day.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the coal industry dispute and the problems of power supplies and safety checks at nuclear power stations.
The House must be aware of the massive increases in fuel costs since the miners' strike began, which are estimated to be £60 million a week. In a desperate attempt to maintain electricity supplies, it is clear that the Central Electricity Generating Board has been running all its non coal-fired power stations to maximum performance, which has led to many unreported and unpublicised breakdowns of equipment. Indeed, there are reports of a near-explosion at Rugeley A power station on Christmas day, and the destruction and burning out of a turbine at Neasden power station at approximately the same time.
We also learn that the CEGB has been running its nuclear power stations flat out during the miners' dispute, and right up to the maximum period of two years before compulsory inspection. It is important that the House discusses this matter, because if those power stations are being run to the limits of their inspection time, will they all be shut down together to allow inspection to take place, or will the Secretary of State for Energy attempt to alter regulations so that they can be run for even longer than two years?
You may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday the CEGB sought legal advice because of a statement made by Friends of the Earth at the Sizewell inquiry that the inspection of nuclear power stations has been taking place under an Act of lesser force than the one which the CEGB should be using. It is using the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, while Friends of the Earth suggests that it should use the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 to inspect nuclear power stations.
I trust that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that this is an urgent and important matter. The implications of many power station breakdowns as a result of overloading for the safety of oil-fired and nuclear power stations are extremely important. Those matters must be debated in the House, not through the columns of newspapers or on television and radio. If the House is to mean anything as a democratic establishment, we must have a debate on all the implications, in terms of public spending and safety, of the miners' dispute.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, namely,
the coal industry dispute and the problems of power supplies and safety checks at nuclear power stations,
which the hon. Gentleman believes should have precedence over the business for today or Monday. I accept, as I said earlier this week, that these are vital matters which in due course should be debated in the House. However, I must have regard to other opportunities which are available. The hon. Gentleman may discover that during energy questions on Monday he will have an opportunity to put those matters. Therefore, I must say with regret that I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a small point, but it might be worth drawing your attention to the fact that when you refused the application of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) you referred to negotiations proceeding. I am sure that you were giving a sign that you would like negotiations to proceed. However, we should remember when further applications are made, probably on Monday, that because of the Prime Minister's interference on a massive scale those negotiations might not proceed. I hope that you will bear that in mind when applications are next made.

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical point, but I judge that all hon. Members would accept that the House is anxious to see a resolution of this damaging dispute. We would be wise to leave matters until the weekend to see what happens.

Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier that you did not much like pressure being brought to bear on the Chair. None of us likes the pressure that is being brought to bear in our areas. You spoke about negotiations and other opportunities for debate. As you heard, the Leader of the House, in describing the business for next week, said that there would be no opportunity for debate. There is no Supply day next week. The first Supply day comes in the following week.
In effect, Mr. Speaker, you are saying that there is no provision for the House to debate the matter, but that hon. Members can ask questions for an hour next week. We are concerned to have a debate and to have the opportunity to put a contrary view, instead of simply putting questions and receiving stonewalling replies. With great respect— no one regrets it more than do my hon. Friends and myself —the only way in which we can use the opportunities open to us, in the absence of a debate in Government time next week, is by continuing to use the perfectly proper procedure of making applications under Standing Order No. 10. We have so far made 22 such applications, but you have been unable to respond favourably. I hope that in the light of Monday's Question Time it will be possible for you to consider favourably an application under Standing Order No. 10 arising out of questions. It will not be possible to give notice before 12 o'clock of matters that may emerge during Question Time, and I hope that you will take that into account if further applications are submitted to you.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I commented previously on a matter that arose from his question. I have received many applications under Standing Order No. 10 but I repeat to him and the House that I must have regard for other opportunities. It is not the role of the Chair to manage the business of the House. That is done through the usual channels. There is an Opposition day most weeks, and it is for the Opposition to decide what is discussed on those days.
I do not object to being under pressure. I say simply for the benefit of those outside, that I would not wish it to be thought that I am in any way involved in the issues. They are not a matter for me. I am bound by the Standing Order.

Mr. Woodall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not regrettable that the Government can find time to debate the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill next week when for the past 11 months they have been caning miners and their families, right, left and centre?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we had better move on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS for MONDAY 11 FEBRUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Edward Leigh
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn
Mrs. Angela Rumbold

BILL PRESENTED

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (COMPENSATION)

Mr. Secretary Jenkin, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. John Moore and Mr. Neil Macfarlane, presented a Bill to restrict the circumstances in which compensation is payable under sections 165 and 169 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and sections 154 and 158 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund Act 1985
2. Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985
3. London Transport (Tower Hill) Act 1985

Local Government (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1985, dated 9th January 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House if with this order we debate the following order:
That the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order 1984, dated 19th December 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.

Mr. Younger: The first order is an annual occurrence — the main rate support grant order for the financial year, which begins in April. The other is less regular and fixes the level of industrial derating, in this case for the next five years. There is a strong link between the two in that my decisions on rate support grant distribution have to take into account the level of industrial derating. It will therefore, I think, be helpful to the House to discuss both the orders together.
Before I outline the details of the orders, I shall set the scene by making one or two general points about the relationship between central and local government at this time.
The impression given just now would suggest two main themes. The first is that local government has in the past been free to spend whatever it likes and that this Government have removed that freedom, leaving those in local government completely restricted in what they can do, and with no local decision-making worth talking about.
The second is that, as a result, local government spending has been cut so hard and so often that many local services are severely reduced or having to be more or less abandoned altogether.
Both those propositions are wildly inaccurate. Local government has never been considered free to spend whatever it likes. It has always, under all Governments, been expected to conform to the main priorities in the national economy set by the Government of the day. Through many Administrations it has always been accepted that this must be so and, while there have often been perfectly valid protests against various aspects of central Government policy, which have often been effective, it has always been accepted that in the end, national Government, of whatever party, have the right to expect that local government will conform and national Government have the duty to take action if necessary.
The change now is that this voluntary consensus, which has worked for many years, has been broken, particularly by a small number of highly political local authorities whose members see that as the best way to forward their political careers.
In face of this, the Government—any Government— have two alternatives: they can let the spenders go ahead without restraint, resulting in more and more being spent by local authorities thus forcing less and less to be spent on other priorities such as the Health Service or in industry; or the Government can ensure that national priorities are protected by strengthening Government powers to achieve results which were previously achieved by voluntary agreement, however reluctantly.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State explain how money raised locally by a local authority — and I am not speaking about Government money — from its rates detracts from the amount that the Government can spend on the Health Service?

Mr. Younger: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know that very well as a person who knows about economics. Any money that is raised from whatever source — from the taxpayer, the ratepayer or any other place — and spent in the public sector is money that cannot be used in other places — for example, for job creation, wealth creation or whatever. That is well known. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know that very well.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State has not answered the question.

Mr. Younger: I have answered the question.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State specifically said that he could not allow local authorities to spend money that could otherwise be spent on items such as the Health Service. He was as specific as that. If the money is raised by a local authority from rates, how does that affect the Government's ability to spend on the Health Service the money that they raise by taxation?

Mr. Younger: I have answered the question already. Any money that is raised by any of these means has a major effect on the national economy. It is money that cannot be used in any other way. The raising of it affects such matters as the retail price index and is wholly a part of the national economy, which is perfectly well known.

Mr. Barry Henderson: On the specific point of the Health Service, is not one of the additional burdens on the Health Service which require additional Government resources, the extra rates that it has to pay to local authorities?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is only one of many examples in which spending by one part of the public sector, from wherever the money is raised, has its effect on the economy as a whole and on other parts. The point is well made, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
The second myth is more simply dismissed. Local authority spending since 1979 has not fallen; it has risen. In 1978–79 local authority current expenditure was £1,428 million. This year, 1984–85, local authorities plan to spend £2,873 million. When account is taken of the effect of inflation on local authority services this is a rise in real terms of 2·6 per cent. So as we listen to the more lurid claims made by some of our friends from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or from hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches about the so-called cuts in local spending, let us bear in mind that the points are being made by people who, as a whole, are spending more than ever before.
I now turn to the rate support grant order provisions. This order gives effect to my decisions about the aggregate of rate support grant and its distribution in the years 1983–84 and 1985–86. It follows extensive discussion with COSLA and has regard to local authorities' actions in the immediately preceding years. The accompanying report sets out what the Government think local authorities should be spending and discusses how much grant they are

prepared to provide. In reaching their decision on the amount of grant, a major factor is whether local authorities are spending in line with the Government's plans or not. If, as is the case, they are not, the Government may have to put pressure on authorities by reducing rate support grant, as we are doing this year. There is nothing new in any of this. The Labour party followed exactly the same philosophy and, indeed, actions when they were in power.
This order is, as I have mentioned, made against a background of continued overspending and continued failure to reduce expenditure below the level of 1978–79. In 1984–85, local authorities planned to spend 2·6 percent, above their 1978–79 level of spending in real terms— that is in volume of local authority services. In cost terms, that is, using the general not the local authority rate of inflation—a more accurate measure of what the failure to reduce expenditure means to the economy as a whole —local authorities planned to spend 12 per cent, more than in 1978–79. In 1984–85, local authorities planned to spend 4·3 per cent, above the Government's plans — little improvement over their budgeted expenditure for 1983–84. I was, however, glad to note that local authorities did respond to the grant reductions in 1983–84 by bringing their overspending down from 4·6 per cent, to a little over 2 per cent.
It is interesting to consider this expenditure record in relation to authorities' manpower levels. After we came to office, these continued to rise until late 1980. There followed a slight fall in 1981 and 1982, although to nowhere near the minimum levels achieved under the last Labour Government, even though the number of teachers in post is now 4,500 fewer than in 1977 because of the fall in school rolls. The figures for manpower have been virtually static for 1983 and 1984 and may, indeed, be starting to show signs of rising. In the quarter to September 1984, the latest for which we have figures, there was a small rise in the numbers employed, after adjustment for seasonal factors. Thus, the failure to contain expenditure is reflected in the manpower figures.
For 1985–86 we have provided local authorities both as a whole and individually with realistic targets and I do not believe that what we are asking them to do is impossible. Relevant expenditure for 1985–86 is just under £3·4 billion. I made a substantial enhancement of £98 million to the original White Paper figures in August 1984 to arrive at this figure and present authorities with a realistic target. It is 5 per cent, above the corresponding figure in the 1984–85 order. Local authorities have criticised that figure as inadequate. They have projected their 1984–85 budgets forward and point to a gap of 3·7 per cent. However, I do not believe that that gap—that is, the level of savings they have to make to come into line with our plans—is as big as they claim. In the first place, what local authorities say they need to spend in 1985–86 is a projection of their budgets for 1984–85. What authorities actually spend is always below budget — more than 2 per cent, below in 1983–84. It is also important to remember that from year to year school rolls, a major determinant of local authority expenditure, are falling. In asking authorities to close the gap which I have narrowed by my enhancement, I am really not asking for anything unreasonable.
At the individual authority level also I believe that we have set realistic targets in the current expenditure guidelines. At one end, for 27 authorities, the guidelines for 1985–86 imply no real terms cut. At the other end the


maximum cash cut required is 1·5 per cent., and this applies to 16 authorities. Thus, slightly over half the authorities will have to make real terms cuts to a greater or lesser extent, but if there is the will, I have no doubt that the savings can be made.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: How is it reasonable for authorities that budget within guidelines for no-growth budgets to have to increase their rates by an average of 15 per cent., and sometimes by as much as 100 per cent.? How can the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it is reasonable for local authorities to have to do that?

Mr. Younger: I am about to come to the effects of distribution, which may be part of that. However, the hon. Gentleman's authority of Gordon has not been required to cut in real terms. I hope that that will be of some help to it. It is certainly better than having to cut in real terms.
While there was some response to our pressures for restraint, more remains to be done if expenditure is to be brought into line with our plans and reduced. I very much hope that the message which I have been sending to authorities since I met them on 24 August last year and which finds its statutory expression in the order will get through and that local authorities will bring then-expenditure down to their guidelines in 1985–86. Local authorities are now at the final stages of drawing up their budgets for 1985–86. I know that many will be budgeting in accordance with guidelines. With the realistic guidelines and the prospect of more severe penalties, I am confident that the number budgeting in line with guidelines will be more than in previous years. I say now to all authorities which have not made the decision to spend in line with guidelines that the cost to the ratepayer of not doing so will be very high. This year the grant penalty range was from 65 per cent, of overspend to 87 per cent. In 1985–86 the range will be more severe. An authority which is planning to spend above its guideline by any margin is doing no service to its ratepayers.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Secretary of State has mentioned his meetings with local authorities. I assume that he is referring to COSLA. Yesterday, the Minister spoke on housing support grant, and several times gave the impression that COSLA agreed with Government policy. Will the Secretary of State make COSLA's views clear?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. Yesterday my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that the formula discussed with COSLA and the details of it had been agreed with it. However, no one who reads the newspapers can be in the slightest doubt that, whatever else we may disagree about, we are all agreed that COSLA does not like the present settlement. There is no doubt about that and there is no point in pretending otherwise.
I turn now from the general expenditure background to the valuation background. This year's order has to take account of the general revaluation of property in Scotland, which comes into effect on 1 April. I was interested to note some of the speeches of Opposition Members—

Mr. Ron Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Younger: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, if I give way all the time I shall take up too much of the debate's time.

Mr. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Younger: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to give way too often.

Mr. Brown: I appreciate that the Secretary of State needs time to develop his theme. Why has the Conservative party reneged on its commitment to its supporters about repealing the antiquated rating system? Why have the Government not wholeheartedly devoted themselves to that objective, given the commitment that they gave during the general election? If the Government say, as they repeatedly do, that the rating system should be abolished, why do they not abolish it?

Mr. Younger: Perhaps I should send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Scottish Conservative manifesto for the last general election. Obviously, he has not studied it fully, as otherwise he would know that we gave no such undertaking. As he knows, we looked carefully at all the alternatives to the rating system, but we found that everybody had great objections to all of them. That is why no major change has been made. However, many important changes have been made in the way that the rating system works. That commitment has been fulfilled, as we said that it would be.
I was saying that I was surprised to find that Opposition Members had been making a growing number of remarks suggesting that they were against revaluation. Perhaps they have discovered—or think they have—that, as it is unpopular, they had better line themselves up against it as soon as possible. However, regular revaluations are necessary if the rating system is to provide a fair basis of local taxation.
It is common ground that it is useful and proper to have revaluations on a regular basis and we in Scotland are proud that we had been able to keep to our five-year pattern fairly regularly … The whole point of a revaluation is to provide the opportunity to adjust anomalies and distortions that have arisen during the … preceding years, possibly as a result of fluctuations in market prices and housing fashions."—[Official Report, 28 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 1194.]
I am interested that the Opposition seem to find that amusing. Those are not my words but the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

Mr. Donald Dewar: Although we have had some reservations, which I shall deal with, about the way in which domestic ratepayers should be protected in certain circumstances, I reaffirm that we are in favour of regular revaluations if the present system continues. The amusement arose because I was speaking in 1982, expecting that 1983 would be a revaluation year. However, there has been a delay of two years while the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have swithered, dithered and worried about what they were going to do.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because it is extremely helpful to know that he is lined up solidly behind the principle of regular revaluations. It puts paid to the idea that some injustice is being done to Scotland by having revaluations. We are all agreed that it is desirable to have them, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that confirmation.
Revaluations inevitably mean change, with some groups gaining and, inevitably, others losing. On the basis of the estimates I have received, the most striking effect of the revaluation this time will be the shift in the rating burden away from industry and public sector rates and, to


a lesser extent, commerce, and on to the domestic sector. Such shifts in the burden are of course quite normal in revaluations and to try wholly to cancel out the effects of the changes would remove the whole point of the exercise. However, I recognise that the shift towards domestic ratepayers is a sharp one and that something has to be done to soften the effect. I therefore made a substantial increase of £19 million in the amount of aggregate Exchequer grant that I announced in August. That will be of significant help in financing a fivefold increase in the domestic element and reducing by a half the effect of revaluation on the domestic ratepayer. The estimates of revaluation also led me to reduce the level of industrial derating, which I shall deal with in more detail later.
After those general remarks I should like to turn to the order. It is very similar to the 1984–85 main order which was in a new format as a result of the introduction of the client group method of grant distribution. This method, developed in consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, is generally regarded as a fairer and more systematic approach. It is fully described in the report accompanying the order. We continue with the work of refining the method of calculating relative expenditure need.
Aggregate Exchequer grant for 1985–86 will be £1,924 million, including the extra £19 million I mentioned. After taking account of the effect of the transfer of two further education colleges to central institution status on 1 September this year, this figure is slightly above the grant figure for 1984–85. It represents 56·6 per cent, of relevant expenditure.
As hon. Members know, rate support grant, which is the subject of the order, is part—very much the larger part—of aggregate Exchequer grant. The other part is accounted for by specific grants — for instance, police grant and urban programme grant. These specific grants total £232·2 million in 1985–86 and are listed in appendix C of the report. Rate support grant totals £1,691·8 million, and article 2 of the order shows how this is divided between the three elements. Domestic element is £63·8 million, much larger than it was in 1984–85 for reasons I have mentioned and resources element is £203·5 million and remains at the ratio of 1:7 to needs element, as it has been for some years. By far the largest part is the needs element, at £1,425·5 million.
The distribution of the needs element is the most significant aspect of the order. As for 1984–85, the amount of needs element payable to each authority is shown in schedule 2 to the order. The method of calculation is described in the report, with the calculations for individual authorities being shown in appendix E.
As I have mentioned, the distribution is based on the client group approach. If that was implemented in full, there would be significant grant gains for some authorities but significant losses for others. I have therefore placed a limit on the change in either direction, up or down, which an authority may experience in the amount of grant it receives in 1985–86 as compared with 1984–85.
No regional council will gain or lose more than £12·32 per head, the equivalent of a 4·8p rate. For districts, the limit is £10·32, the equivalent of a 4p rate in pre-revaluation terms.
In setting these limits I have had to strike a balance between further progress towards the client group

approach and avoiding excessive grant losses. Given the limits set and the fact that, leaving aside Orkney and Shetland, only three authorities will now be receiving less than their client group entitlement, I think that a reasonable balance has been achieved.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to say what advice he would offer a local authority such as West Lothian district council, whose expenditure is well below the client group method of assessment and is only barely above guideline, but which now faces a cut in grant of well over half the rate support grant? Would he advise such an authority to match that cut of over half its grant by cutting services, or by an increase in rates of 20 per cent., which is what is required to compensate for the cut in grant that the right hon. Gentleman is imposing?.

Mr. Younger: The best advice that I can give, without going in full detail into everything to do with West Lothian, is for the authority to keep within its guidelines. If it succeeds in that it should, I understand, have a rate increase above the average of not much more than 1p. The question is whether such authorities keep within their guidelines. In the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, Lothian region would have to play its part and do the same.
I would mention one other aspect of the needs element distribution. Each year it is necessary to decide how to split the total between regions and districts. My decision this year has led to concern among district councils, and there are a number of points I would make about that.
First, there is nothing fixed about the existing split of rate support grant between regions and districts. It has never corresponded to the split in expenditure and it has been changed from time to time, including by the Labour party when in government.
This year I decided that it was important to increase the grant to some regions and to keep to a minimum the grant losses of other regions, since regional rates account for by far the largest part of the bill ratepayers have to pay.
Secondly, as I said, there is a limit of 4p in rate poundage terms to the amount of grant loss which any district has to suffer, for whatever reason. District rates account for only about a quarter of the total bill that ratepayers have to pay. Thus, while that loss may look quite large as a percentage of the district rate, the ratepayer will look at it in terms of his total rate bill, which includes the regional rate, which is much larger. In these terms, the percentage effect of the change in the district rate will be much smaller.
Thirdly, many districts are spending above guidelines. If they reduce their expenditure to guideline, they will be able to offset to a large extent the effect on their rates of the reduction in grant. They will also be able to avoid the severe grant penalties for which they would be liable in 1985–86. Thus, I would not accept that the reduction in grant can automatically be equated with an increase in rates of an identical amount.
I accept that there are authorities spending at guideline to which the course of further expenditure reduction is not really open. Some of those authorities have substantial balances, and I would hope that they would consider carefully whether they need to maintain balances — exceeding, in some cases, a year's rate income — or whether it would be proper to apply those balances to the benefit of the ratepayers by keeping rates down.


For authorities without substantial balances and which are spending, and continue to spend,, at guidelines, there will be rate increases above the average as a result of the pressure that we are applying to authorities as a whole through the grant percentage. However, the moderate policies of those authorities have kept the rates in those areas down and enabled their ratepayers to avoid the cost to them of grant penalties for spending above guideline. By continuing that policy, these authorities will be continuing to take the course which is in the best interests of their ratepayers.
I appreciate that the decisions I have had to make create problems for some authorities which have spent in line with our plans but which still face grant losses. However, initial grant distribution has never been linked to expenditure performance. Under the circumstances, we have had no option but to continue pressure on authorities generally by further reducing total grant. As a result, there is not enough grant to do all that I might have liked to do for districts, but I have taken careful note of the points that have been made by individual councils on these matters.
Those are the main features of the order for 1985–86. The order also implements routine variations in rate support grant for 1983–84 and 1984–85. For 1983–84, grant is increased by £20·5 million. As I announced in the debate on 23 October, grant is to be increased to protect authorities whose expenditure in that year is within, or close to, their guidelines, including the tolerance on account of the unallocated margin.
The amount required for that purpose is £17·4 million. The remainder is to take account of the final level of loan charges and leasing payments and to pay the balance of compensation for protection from the 1982–83 general abatement.
For 1984–85, grant will be increased by £15·3 million to reflect revised forecast interest rates and the additional cost of the September 1983 and September 1984 police pay awards.
Having described the order, I come to what it might mean for the ratepayer. For the reasons I have mentioned, in particular revaluation, the picture for 1985–86 is complicated. If all authorities spend at guidelines in 1985–86 and make no use of balances, the grant figure contained within the order implies an average rate increase a small way above inflation.
However, revaluation means markedly different effects on the rate bills of different groups of ratepayers. On those assumptions, industrial and public sector rate bills would, on average, come down by 7 per cent.; commercial bills would go up by 3 per cent.; and domestic rate bills by 13 per cent. I emphasise that these are averages.
There will be significant variations between and within local authorities. To the extent that local authorities exceed guidelines this year and have to pay grant penalty or exceed guidelines next year, these average figures will be higher. The convention's much higher estimates of rate increases seem to be based on continued overspending in both 1984–85 and 1985–86. I therefore urge authorities, for the sake of their ratepayers, to bring their expenditure down to guideline as soon as they can.
The Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order, which is the latest in a series made since 1965, is to provide that the level of derating of industrial and freight transport subjects in Scotland be reduced from 50 to 40 per cent. from 1 April 1985 for the period until 31 March 1990.
Industrial derating is, I should emphasise, not a part of regional policy and should not be seen as some kind of incentive to Scottish industry. Rather it is an instrument of tax harmonisation aimed at ensuring in the face of different rating and valuation systems north and south of the border that the rates burden on Scottish industry keeps broadly in line with that in England and Wales, thus preventing any significant competitive economic disadvantage or advantage.
Prior to 1963, industrial derating applied to industry throughout Great Britain. It came to an end in England and Wales in 1963, which was a year of revaluation there—a rare event. Scotland was expected to follow suit at its revaluation in 1966, but as 1966 approached it became clear that if derating were terminated, industrial rate burdens in Scotland would be very much greater than those in England and Wales. Accordingly, an order continuing 50 per cent. derating was made by the Secretary of State in 1965 to maintain a broad equivalence of rate burdens north and south of the border. If that order had not been made, industry's share of the total rate burden in Scotland would have risen to nearly 21 per cent. in 1966, when the share borne by industry in England and Wales was still 14 per cent. Since then the relative position has shown little change and derating for Scottish industry has been continued at 50 per cent. by a series of orders, the Last of which was made in 1982 and runs until 31 March this year.
The extent to which derating in Scotland assures equivalence with England and Wales may be assessed in two ways: first, by comparing industry's share of aggregate rateable value in Scotland and in England and Wales, and secondly, by comparing for each country the ratio of rates paid to sales of manufactured goods. From the revaluation in 1966 until now industrial derating at a level of 50 per cent. has maintained industry's share of the total rateable value in Scotland close to that for industry in England and Wales, and, similarly, the rates paid per £1,000 of sales have stayed broadly in alignment.
The issues are complex, even more so this year because of the complete revaluation of all heritable property in Scotland, which takes effect from 1 April. Regular revaluations are a feature of the rating system in Scotland and are necessary to keep up to date the relativities between the different classes of ratepayer and within each class. Inevitably, revaluation results in changes between classes of ratepayer, with some paying more, others less. The last revaluation benefited the domestic ratepayer; on this occasion estimates point to benefits for non-domestic subjects, especially the industrial and freight transport subjects that qualify for industrial derating. Those estimates show that following the revaluation Scottish industry would account for only 8·8 per cent. of total rateable value if 50 per cent. derating applied — as proposed in the order — compared to 9·9 per cent. in England and Wales, whereas at 40 per cent. the Scottish figure would become 10·3 per cent. with the possibility that that figure will slightly reduce following the settlement of appeals that will inevitably follow the revaluation. In terms of the comparison of the rate burden on industry expressed as a proportion of sales, it is clear from current data that, subject to uncertainties about local authority spending, the rate burdens on Scottish industry marginally exceed those in England and Wales. Following the revaluation, however, the Scottish figure would be quite significantly reduced if 50 per cent. industrial derating continued, but with 40 per cent. derating, the


difference between Scotland and England would be reduced to within the range in which it has moved in recent years.
Taking the two tests together, therefore, I have concluded that 40 per cent. would be the right level to maintain the broad equality of treatment that we have always sought to achieve. In addition, to ensure that there are stable conditions in which industry can plan ahead with confidence, it is my intention that the order should run until 1990, when the next Scottish revaluation is due by statute. I reiterate that, even with that, industrial rate bills in Scotland should come down on average by about 7 per cent.
That brings me back to the various criticisms that have been made by the Opposition.

Mr. James Wallace: Before the Secretary of State leaves industrial rating, I should like to mention one point that may arise on revaluation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is concern that the rateable value of oil installations in Scotland may change as a result of last year's legislation, which allowed comparability between England and Scotland? It is not a matter for the Secretary of State, but if that happens, can he give a reassurance that the loss of rateable revenue to local authorities will be made up by the Scottish Office?

Mr. Younger: That is a sweeping assurance. I could not make that one. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that matter would be dealt with by the normal statutory processes, by assessors, appeals and so on, under the statute. However, I can say that if there are exceptional effects and they are drawn to my attention, I shall be prepared to discuss and examine them, but I cannot give a guarantee that any shortfall would be made up—by magic, as it were—by the Scottish Office.
I should like to deal with some of the main criticisms that have been made by Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in various things that he is reported to have said recently, which are relevant to the background of the debate.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not enough for him to criticise the orders alone; he must, if he is to be credible, tell us what alternative he proposes to adopt. If he thinks that the districts should have more grant out of the needs element, as we understand he does, how much would he take away from the regions to help them? COSLA will not answer that question—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will. If it is wrong for the Government to try to limit local spending, would he have no limit? How much extra would he let the local authorities spend if he took off the shackles, which he is always talking about? Would he let them spend £100 million, £200 million or £400 million? How much would it be? If they did spend up in that way, which of the other Scottish Office programmes would he cut to compensate for the extra taken by local government? Would he cut the Health Service, the Scottish Development Agency, trunk roads, or what?
One has only to ask those questions and fail to get any answers to appreciate the emptiness of the whole position that the hon. Gentleman has taken on the matter. Of course, it is a continual matter of legitimate contention between us as to what the level of provision and of overall expenditure should be, and it is quite absurd to take

seriously an official Opposition who pretend that they could ignore overspending and make no provision to meet it or even check it.

Mr. William McKelvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Younger: I must finish my speech.
I do not deny for a moment that it is difficult for local authorities to bring spending under control. I have always acknowledged that, and I have been warning them frequently that the longer they continue to overspend, the more difficult it becomes. All past Labour Governments have had to exercise controls over local government, and if the hon. Member for Garscadden really thinks he may one day belong to a Labour Government, he must accept that he will have to do so, too. He must today come clean to the House and all those outside in local government about how he would pay for the extra spending he is now encouraging his friends in local government to undertake. It is they, by their deliberate extravagance — some of them — over many years who have so distorted the system that even those who have reduced their spending are facing extra burdens which they need never have had in the first place. The hon. Gentleman has been trying to be all things to all men and has completely failed to face the issues. If he is to be believed today, he must face up to his responsibilities and answer those very relevant questions.
I am sure that the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order continues the broadly equal treatment for Scottish industry that has always been our objective. I believe that the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order provides a reasonable measure of support for Scottish local authorities while maintaining our pressure on them to bring their expenditure into line with our plans in the interests of national economic objectives and of ratepayers.
I commend both orders to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The variety of parliamentary life is endless — the housing support grant yesterday and the rate support grant today. Those of us who have to take an interest in the rather specialist entertainment that those events provide can take a certain delight in watching Ministers putting their own special gloss on the facts—a specious argument here, comments bordering on misrepresentation there. It is delicately done and carefully prepared. However, what we do not get is any nonsense about claiming credit for what is happening to local government and to many district councils, particularly the smaller ones represented by the Secretary of State's hon. Friends.
I object to some of the euphemisms, and it is time that the Minister faced up to what is happening. The point was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) yesterday that we have had a nice line in euphemism, particularly from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) when he spoke on local government finance. My favourite was the suggestion that COSLA did not feel able to suggest another formula. I gather that we were invited to accept that everything was all harmony and light, and no other formula could be accepted.
The truth of the matter, which the Secretary of State went some way to recognising, is that COSLA, the


Opposition, and a large number of Conservative councils in Scotland do not want any formula, form, part or portion of either the housing support grant or rate support grant settlement this year. The Secretary of State spoke of euphemisms and understatements, but I treasure the thought that a large number of councils that will face disaster as a result of the Secretary of State's activities was skilfully downgraded at the beginning of his speech to an annual occurrence.
We dislike this settlement, and find it inadequate. I was flattered by the Minister's obsessive interest in my views. I am happy to spend some time talking about them. Some of my hon. Friends think that one of my faults is that I talk endlessly about my views, and there may be some substance in that. However, I realise that I have not been able to satisfy the Secretary of State.
There is room for expansion in the economy and we should have adequate and decent services. I am sure that the Secretary of State will have read, although he may not agree with it, something of the economic strategy being advocated by the Labour party. It is a legitimate and necessary part of that strategy to argue that we favour a much more generous approach to the real financial problems facing local authorities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): How much?

Mr. Dewar: These are juvenile witterings from the Minister. If he expects me to start throwing around figures at this stage, he is making a mistake.
We are facing some worrying issues. I should be fair, so I concede immediately that the problems this year have been bedevilled by revaluation. I do not object to regular revaluations while the present system continues, but I have severe reservations, as I think the Secretary of State does. I do not know whether this was mentioned in the last Conservative manifesto, but for a number of years Conservative Members have been talking about rating reform. Revaluation came in 1985, not 1983, because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) deliberately postponed domestic revaluation because the Government were actively looking for ways to abolish at least domestic rates, and in those circumstances a revaluation would be of no importance or relevance.
There is a general discontent. We have had two years of what I described in my intervention as dithering and swithering. At the end, we have had the extraordinary proposition, which appeared in a White Paper, that radical rating reform had to be abandoned because, we were invited to believe, there was no public demand for a change. There self-evidently is public demand for a change, although there may be difficulties in getting the right answer to the problem of what should replace rates. That is the subject for another debate.
The difficulties of the revaluation have been compounded by the delay to which I have referred. We now see a massive swing against the domestic ratepayer and a threat of revaluation. I do not know what the figures are, but I understand that in Scotland the domestic ratepayer's rateable value is likely to go up on average by 170 per cent. and industrial ratepayers' rateable value by 70 per cent. In Glasgow, I am told, domestic ratepayers face an increase of 180 per cent., while industrial ratepayers face an increase of 30 per cent. I am sure that there will be a great deal of fear and dismay when that

news rattles through the letterboxes of the Scottish people in the next three or four weeks. This is a substantial increase. I accept that it is not the rateable value but the rate poundage that matters, and that revaluation of the balance is a matter for the assessor. As a result, at the end of the day, a substantially increased percentage of the revenue from rates will be paid by the domestic ratepayer.

Mr. Younger: I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be fair, so I am sure that he will agree that nothing that he says should lead anybody hearing it or reading it to think that his rates will go up by 180 per cent. The rateable value is the important thing. I know that the hon. Gentleman knows this, but it is most important that people should not be unnecessarily alarmed.

Mr. Dewar: I agree, and I thought that I had spelt that out. I do not want to be an alarmist, but there will still be a substantial increase in the share borne by the domestic ratepayer. I accept that the Secretary of State has taken some steps to try to mitigate this, and it would be wrong to deny it. The derating of industry from 50 to 40 per cent. was mentioned in an interesting part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. For years — if one adds the speeches up and lays them end to end it comes to months — I have listened to speeches in which Conservative Members have said that the rates in Scotland are a uniquely difficult burden for Scottish industry.
I was interested to hear the Secretary of State say that, if one takes the rate burden as a proportion of turnover, we are in equilibrium with England, and will remain so after the adjustment. I hope that Conservative Members will remember that, because it undermines the point of one of their favourite hobby horses—the so-called profligacy and irresponsibility of Scottish authorities.
We also have a complicated formula under which the domestic element, which was 3p on the old valuation standard, will go up to 5p in the new valuation. This is a substantial increase. Is this a permanency for the period of this quinquennium? The derating of industrial properties from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. is specifically said to continue to 1990, but, as far as I am aware, nothing has been said about similar permanent arrangements to the end of this revaluation. If this is not to be permanent, the implications for the domestic ratepayer will be considerable.
Although partial help has been given, there is an element of the fraudulent in this system. I am sorry to use a rather ugly word. In the settlement for last year, some £14 million of the grant paid had to be devoted to support of the domestic ratepayer. Now, we are being asked to find £64 million from a slightly reduced settlement for the same purpose. In effect, that is a loss of £50 million to the local authorities. Even after that, we know that the equivalent burden for domestic ratepayers is an increase of 8 per cent. on the rates.
The Secretary of State will not quibble with the proposition that there is nothing wrong in helping to meet the burdens—to some extent, he is doing so. However, in view of the depressing statistics emerging from district councils and of the blow falling on the domestic ratepayer, the Secretary of State should have cushioned them more effectively and should have alleviated that burden. We shall return to this again and again. I recognise that there are always problems about cash resources, but in the


present circumstances, to leave the domestic ratepayer partially unprotected would be unacceptable to Labour Members.
It is self-evident that all this has complicated this year's arithmetic. However one looks at the problem, this is another rotten rate support grant settlement. It is bad for the councils, bad for ratepayers and bad for those who use local authorities' services. Understandably, the Secretary of State made a great deal of play with the increase in relevant expenditure, but just as it is not only the rateable value but the rateable value and the rate poundage that have to be taken into account, so we have to look at the relevant expenditure and at the level of grant paid. That has dropped again from 62·2 per cent. to 56·5 per cent. As a result, in cash terms we shall be paying £6 million less this year than last to local authorities.
I know that the Secretary of State has said that that is an unfair comparison because somewhere two colleges are moving from one sector to another, but the Secretary of State has a nasty habit of mentioning special factors when they are in his favour and ignoring special factors when they are inconvenient for him. The truth is that we have lost £6 million. If we add to that the increase from £14 million to £64 million that I referred to in the domestic element, there is a loss in effect of £56 million.
Relevant expenditure has gone up by £194 million to allow for inflation. The Secretary of State makes a virtue of that, but it has not been reflected in the grant. If £194 million is the proper inflation figure, that should have been met in the grant settlement. If we add the lot together, we find that we are £250 million worse off than last year. That is a substantial loss to local authorities that are suffering the difficulties, problems and demands faced by almost all local authorities in Scotland.
The impact on services is bound to be severe. COSLA has supplied figures and I do not think they are open to challenge. If we apply to the 1984–85 budgets 4·5 per cent., 4·75 per cent. or whatever the proper deflator is that the Government have set in the White Paper, and compare the figures with the guidelines for 1985–86, we find that the standstill budgets would have to be cut by £101 million to meet guidelines. If that is measured against the crisis in education and the fact that the White Paper is proposing that by 1987–88 there will be a reduction in real terms of about 10 per cent. in education spending, we begin to see what bad news these figures add up to.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that, without at the same time saying how many fewer pupils there will be.

Mr. Dewar: I accept that that is a factor — the Government are entitled to draw attention to that—but the Secretary of State will not cavil at the suggestion that there is a real crisis in the classroom and that the introduction of Munn and Dunning, the 16 to 18-year-old action plan, at a time when resources are becoming more and more inadequate, has complicated the business of educating the children and running the schools. The cuts proposed by the Secretary of State will make the position worse. In any event, if the right hon. Gentleman accepts —I do not see how he cannot—that we are in real terms £250 million short on a standstill budget as against last year, even if every authority in Scotland went down to

guidelines, we would still have about £150 million less because we would be coming down only by the £101 million to which I referred a few moments ago.
We all recognise that district councils in particular are suffering because of the settlement. Their needs element has come down from £130 million to £94·5 million. This substantial cut has led to a substantial crisis for many smaller district councils. They will suffer massive reductions in rate support grant settlement. If the Secretary of State wants to look to his laurels and maintain his pose as the ratepayers' champion, which I think he is fond of assuming, he must think again about what he is doing to many district councils and local authorities generally. His record on rates is not happy, as he knows. He would say —I recognise his defence—that he has been struggling to do something about it, but the record is there.
Between 1978–79 and 1984–85, the annual domestic ratepayer's bill in Scotland has gone up from £132 to £326, an increase of 147 per cent. My contention is that one of the first and primary reasons has been the persistent and continuing cuts in the rate support grant settlement and other support given to local government. The cuts are being repeated and compounded in this order.
An important point which I am sure will be appreciated by many Conservative Back Benchers is that the Government have planned deliberately. I understand that the assumed rate contribution in district councils, on the basis that they meet their guidelines, is an increase of 34 per cent. and that for the regions the increase is 17 per cent. The Secretary of State is assuming that, if district councils meet their guidelines, the proportion of expenditure to be met from the rate contribution will increase by 34 per cent. Therefore, he is deliberately assuming a substantial increase or else the eating of the seed corn by a raid on what little is left at this stage in the balance of most local authorities.
The answer is that, even if councils do everything that the Secretary of State asks of them, many of them will be faced with a substantial rate increase. We can see that if we look around Scotland. Let us take north-east Fife. The leader of north-east Fife, who is, I think, a member of the Liberal party, was at the COSLA lobby on Tuesday. He told me, and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what he said, that the Tory budget last year was over guidelines. The Liberals, for reasons that may have seemed good to them, made cuts to get within the guidelines. This year they are budgeting to stay within the guidelines. That is what the Secretary of State has been seeking and no doubt they will get a gold star for effort. Their reward is that their rate support grant settlement this year has dropped by 49 per cent. and they are faced with a rates increase of 37 per cent.
Let us consider Nithsdale; I know that it is not a local authority that is liked by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). He told us recently that it was hellbent on confrontation and illegality. He has a point, because I understand that on budget it will be 8 per cent. over guidelines. Its rate increase will be 45 per cent. Even if it came down to guidelines it would still have a rate increase of 36 per cent. on the arithmetic unless it has something salted away in the chest. That can hardly be satisfactory.
What about Dumfries and Galloway, the region of the hon. Member for Dumfries? It has been within the guidelines from time immemorial, certainly for as long as


there have been guidelines. Again, no doubt it will get brownie points for prudence from the Secretary of State. On 13 December he told the House:
I … greatly appreciate the splendid efforts that various local authorities, including Dumfries and Galloway, have made".— [Official Report, 13 December, 1984; Vol 69, c. 1224.]
His gratitude is not reciprocated, because Major Peter Fox appeared in an unlikely starring role earlier this month in the Daily Record, talking about a rate increase of 20 to 25 per cent.
COSLA has been making inquiries and information is available in the returns coming to it because everyone is in a position to finalise the figures. I am told that there is a deadline of 31 January for the statutory consultation process. Unless authorities raid balances—in some cases balances do not exist — and cut services below the guideline level, they will be faced with substantial rate increases. I shall not go into them in detail, but the figures for some authorities are dramatic.
Ettrick and Lauderdale is heading for a rate increase of 65 per cent. Eastwood, even if it comes down to guidelines — it is well above them — will have a 57 per cent. increase. Banff and Buchan—I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has hidden himself somewhere — has a possibility of a 70 per cent. increase. Angus has fixed an increase of 56 per cent. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) pointed out in an intervention, Gordon is contemplating an increase of 129 per cent. In the main, these are people who have come down to guidelines, or are on guidelines or below them, and who can avoid increases only if they can find cash from balances or if they cut substantially to get below the parsimonious and inadequate level of services which the guidelines allow.
The hon. Member for Dumfries said in the House the other day that talk of a rates increase of 30 to 40 per cent. was very much exaggerated; he is in for a nasty shock. These are not the problems of a small number of highly political councillors, as the Secretary of State tried to suggest, nor a matter of profligate, revolutionary cliques hijacking councils with unreasonable policies. I do not think Major Peter Fox would like to be described in that way. It is a case of ordinary, very often Tory, councillors being clobbered by Tory cuts. The people who will pay at the end of the day are the ratepayers whom the Conservative Government so arrogantly and so inaccurately claim to champion.
The average over Scotland will be nothing like as high as the figures that I have mentioned. I have been talking about small district councils and I would not like to give the impression that the average figure will be anything like the individual figures I have quoted. Obviously, the figures for the regions will be lower. District council rates are often quite low, as the rate poundages are low. However, there may be some shocks even among the big boys when their figures are measured against those which the Secretary of State has been claiming. I suspect, for example, that Tayside will not be in the right hon. Gentleman's good books when its rate is finally announced.
I am pretty sure that there will be an average rate well above that predicted by the right hon. Gentleman. That is because he has introduced an inadequate rate support grant settlement. He has placed many of his political friends and many local authorities in Scotland in a trap of his making.
His policies threaten the central services and in many areas they will send rates soaring. I challenge any Conservative Member representing any of the areas which I have mentioned to tell me that the figures that I have quoted are wrong or inaccurate. When we consider the impact on services, we see that the Government are guilty of a form of vandalism.
As I have said, the Secretary of State likes to pose as the ratepayers' friend. I believe that he has paid far too much attention to the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The sad result of his almost total subservience is to be seen in the miserably inadequate statement that he has presented to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It is a pleasure to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). If I may say so without spoiling the hon. Gentleman's reputation, he always increases his standing in the House by the fluency and reason with which he advances his argument. I am happy to pay tribute to the way he does so, irrespective of whether I agree with all that he says.
I wish to discuss in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the equity of the system by which we have arrived at the order. I am bound to tell my right hon. Friend that, being almost entirely uneducated. I do not understand now the meaning of simple words. I have always understood that if we talked about an assessed need, it meant that someone's needs had been assessed, but it appears that that is not the meaning of "assessed need". Having assessed the need of a local authority, the Scottish Office offers it something different. I stand to be corrected, but it seems that the sum offered by the Scottish Office is always less than the assessment. Either an authority needs the amount which has been assessed or it does not. If a sum has been assessed as necessary, it seems strange that the Scottish Office should put a certificate under the assessment to the effect that the assessed sum is unnecessary.
The local authorities in my constituency are struggling desperately to obey the intelligent thrift which my right hon. Friend has urged upon them. When he assesses their need to be what they say it is, it is strange that he should then give them less than they need which has been assessed.
It is acknowledged that the House has a right to constrain, investigate and scrutinise the spending of other people's money by either elected representatives or officials. That is the essence of political responsibility. I should be the last to do other than congratulate my right hon. Friend on preventing local authorities from extravagant expenditure. As one who has the fortune or misfortune to live both in Fife and in Lambeth, I know the extent to which that power can be exercised. The amount of money spent on the adoption by lesbians of little girls and on male homosexuals who wish to adopt little boys makes the rating of my pinhole in Lambeth greater than the sum which Fife extracts from me for what is termed a grander residence. I understand that there is no difficulty for a local authority in the exercise of its egotism and arrogance to say, "The more we spend, the more potent we are." I am happy with the intention of my right hon. Friend, but I do not believe that it is possible to make the present system equitable. Therefore, I believe that the rating system should be changed.
I take that view because I believe that the system is massively and inevitably inequitable and not because of statements in manifestos or commitments. If those who contribute, apart from the Government, to the revenue of a local authority are categorised, they fall into three. The three categories are industrial, commercial and domestic. Industrial managers and their work forces have no vote on the rating of the premises in which they function. Likewise, those who own shops or commercial undertakings have no vote in the areas in which their businesses lie if they live outside them. As for domestic ratepayers, only the house owner who pays the rates is likely to be concerned about the matter.
I do not want to speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I would be surprised if Mrs. Younger, Master Younger or the Misses Younger were greatly concerned about the cheque which my right hon. Friend has to write in payment of his rates. Knowing where he lives, I imagine that he is concerned. Members of the public over a certain age have a vote and rating increases affect the majority of them only socially. Only the householder who pays the rates is affected directly, although I accept that the other members of his household might be affected vicariously.
A huge number of domestic ratepayers receive a rate rebate and the majority of the public benefit from increased expenditure without having to contribute to it. I understand that about 70 per cent. of the population of Greater Manchester are in that position. That is thoroughly inequitable. It is no good saying that if a local authority increases its rate to an unacceptable level it can be thrown out at the next election. That cannot happen, because those who are contributing to the increased expenditure are not those who can vote out the authority. In my opinion, the system is so inequitable that I urge my right hon. Friend to tell the Government that such inequity cannot continue.
When my right hon. Friend attempts to prevent the robbery of the paying ratepayer and indulges in orders, rate capping, restrictions, guidelines and needs assessment, he finds himself alienating everyone. It does not matter whether the individual is a supporter of the Labour party, the Communist party, the Liberal party or the Conservative party. Every local authority in Scotland is upset by the position in which it finds itself. Some authorities are upset because of their pig-headed extravagance in the past, but some of them, such as Perth and Kinross, are upset because, having been thrifty, they are punished for taking that line because of the effect of needs assessment and guidelines. They are punished while those authorities which have been extravagant are rewarded for being extravagant, and are only partly punished. My poor, dear right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discovered that he had set off to be Florence Nightingale and had come back as Jack the Ripper. The system is the reason why that happened.
People write to me asking, "Why don't the English revalue? Why do the Scots have to revalue if the English don't?" God help the English if they put off revaluing, because a volcanic effect will overwhelm them when they eventually do.
Let us consider what happens if the three categories of industry, domestic ratepayers and commerce are derated. I have never understood why industry should be derated. I have always understood why ancient monuments, such

as the one in which I live, should be derated. The Opposition keep telling me that my building is not fit for human habitation.
I remember arguing a case — I may have been instructed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden — before the Lands Valuation Appeal Court about whether the ripening of a banana was an industrial process. It was held to be an industrial process on the basis of a case in which it was held that the maturing of an object used for birth control was an industrial process.
Why should industry, which cannot put its rates bill against its tax bill, be derated when the domestic ratepayer, who is not derated, cannot put his rates bill against his tax bill? That is thoroughly unfair.
In this revaluation, industry, which is derated, benefits. Commerce and small offices and shops, which are most likely to employ people and affect unemployment figures, are punished most. Those businesses receive no relief and are not derated. The rating of offices and shops in every large and small town in Scotland has prevented a great deal of employment.
The domestic ratepayer will have to pick up from industry what was handed to industry in the last two valuations. Where is the fairness in handing this to the ratepayer? Where is the logic in saying, "We want everyone to be a householder," and then saying, "Make sure, if you are mug enough to become your own householder, that you have the money to pay for it."? That places an inequitable burden on some householders. A great many householders receive rate rebates, so this rating becomes a false tax. The burden will fall on those who cannot afford it—not the very rich or the very poor, but the mugs in between.
I am not criticising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am appealing to him to change an indefensible system. My right hon. Friend is like the Dutch boy, except that in this case there are many holes in the dyke. My right hon. Friend is attempting to plug the holes with his elegant finger.
I believe that the system is not capable of being contained by my right hon. Friend's procedures. Every year, it has been demonstrated that the system is probably unfair to everyone. The system does not tame the extravagant or reward the thrifty. If does not do justice. It certainly does not—I am sure that this would never be a consideration of a Secretary of State—gain votes or keep votes. My right hon. Friend is in an impossible position. He has grandly defended his order, but there is only one answer to the problem: the system must be reformed, because taxation without representation is contrary to our constitution and our principles. The rating system does just that, and it does so unfairly.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I was not surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) attack the rating system, especially in the light of the experience of Perth and Kinross district council. That council already receives no housing support grant from the Government, and next year its rate support grant will be halved. That is what is happening to an authority which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, has been loyal to the Government.
The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross might have added, as a reminder to the Secretary of State,


that the Government promised in the 1974 election to abolish the domestic rating system. The Government have produced very little. They have forgotten that promise.
I do not go along with a good deal of the criticism of the rating system, but the effects of successive rate support grant orders from the present Secretary of State help us to understand why there is a widespread feeling in Scotland about the system's inequities and widespread anxiety about the ever-increasing burdens placed on ratepayers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) dealt comprehensively with the speech by the Secretary of State. As we have come to expect, the speech by the Secretary of State was full of claptrap about how anxious he was to protect ratepayers from additional rating burdens. Because my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden dealt comprehensively with that speech, I shall deal with some of the major issues that arise from the settlement.
We have the same pattern this year as we have had every year since this Secretary of State took responsibility for rating in Scotland. The expenditure level at which grants will be paid in 1985–86 is unrealistic. There is no chance in 1985–86 of local authorities generally budgeting for the figures provided for in the order. Their budgets will be well above that level. There is some dispute about how far above that level individual local authorities will be, but, taken as a whole, they will not fit the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State. Their total budgets will certainly be higher than the relevant expenditure provided for in the order.
Every year we have said, "The expenditure provided for by the Secretary of State is completely unrealistic." Every year the Secretary of State has said, "It is a perfectly realistic figure. If only local authorities were sensible and reasonable, they would reach the figure I have laid down."
Paragraph 8 of the statement accompanying the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1984 stated that £64 million would be added to the provision for the relevant current expenditure for 1984–85. That amount was an increase on the level proposed in the White Paper published a few months previously. The £64 million was added to bring the amount up to a "realistic expenditure" level.
If one says that extra money must be added to bring the amount up to a realistic figure, one says that the previous figure was unrealistic, and that is precisely what the Opposition said at that time. We said that, even with the addition of £64 million, the amount was still unrealistic. Of course, the Secretary of State said that that was not so and that, if everyone behaved himself, there would be no problem. The local authorities budgeted for £114 million above the rate support grant figure. In July 1984, the Secretary of State told the House that he had imposed a penalty on them of £90 million.
We are going through the same process again this year. The Secretary of State talks about a so-called enhancement of £98 million for 1985–86, to make the figures realistic. Why do we need an enhancement if the original figures were realistic, as was claimed at the time of the publication of the White Paper? We said at the time that they were not realistic. We said that there was no hope that in 1985–86, if the Government stuck to the figures, the local authorities would even approach them.
The Secretary of State makes a virtue of the so-called enhancements, but the figures that were used for a number of years were so ludicrously out of scale with actual

expenditure by local authorities that they made a complete nonsense of the public expenditure White Papers. The right hon. Gentleman had to enhance the figures, not even to make them realistic but just to prevent that discrepancy between his figures and reality from growing worse each year.
However, at the same time as the right hon. Gentleman enhances the figures with an extra £98 million, he reduces the rate of grant by a larger amount, so that the local authorities are not better off but worse off. The reduction in the rate of grant is greater than the so-called enhancement of the figures. For 1985–86, the amount of rate support grant provided for in the order is less than the amount provided for 1984–85 in the equivalent order last year. The amount of money going to the local authorities by way of grant has been reduced by £6 million, despite inflation and increased costs.
Even if local authorities budgeted for 1985–86 on the same basis as for the current year, and took account of the Secretary of State's ideas about what the inflation rate will be in 1985–86—which will be proved to be an underestimate — they would still have to reduce their expenditure by about 3·6 per cent. in real terms. The reduction would be somewhat more for the districts and less for the regions. However, they are not going to make that reduction.
The Secretary of State's figures are becoming closer to reality not because of his generosity but for the reasons that I have explained. But the local authority budgets for 1986 will not be reduced to the figures in the order or in the guidelines based on it. There will therefore be the same rigmarole in July. The Secretary of State will tell the House that, because the local authorities have budgeted above the guidelines, he will, unfortunately, have to impose penalties. We understand from a threatening passage in his speech that those penalties will be even more severe in 1985–86 than they were in 1984–85.
The Government's attitude might suggest that there has been some extravagant explosion of expenditure by local authorities in recent years. That is not true. The Secretary of State quoted some Government figures this afternoon. They were given in an answer on 10 January. It was said that, between 1978–79 and 1984–85—in six years—there had been an increase of 2·5 per cent. in real terms in local government expenditure relevant to the rate support grant.
What the Secretary of State did not say was that since 1980–81 there had been no increase at all. In 1984–85 the figures were, in fact, slightly lower than in 1980–81. Over those years, local authority expenditure, in real terms, has been frozen.
The Secretary of State boasts about it. He says that there have been no great cuts. One would think that he had planned for a freeze, but every year he plans for a reduction in the following year—not a freeze. When he cannot get it, he points out that, for instance, the pupil-teacher ratio is not as bad as we had said it would be. However, that will only be because, very sensibly, the local authorities have paid no attention to some of the strictures laid on them by the Secretary of State.
If services have not been slashed, it is no thanks to the right hon. Gentleman. In the first year of his responsibility for the rate support grant, the right hon. Gentleman wanted the authorities in the following year to reduce their services by 7·5 per cent. in real terms. He has more modest ambitions now. He said that that reduction could be


achieved without difficulty because there was plenty of fat. That was proved to be nonsense, and in recent years, local authority expenditure has been frozen in real terms.
That, of course, means a real cut. The situation is similar to that in the National Health Service. Unless there is a modest improvement in real terms each year in finance for the NHS, to take account of demographic and technological changes and so on, the NHS deteriorates. The same argument applies to the local authorities. Especially in the urban areas such as Glasgow, but also in rural areas, we all know that because of the increasing demands being placed on local authorities and their inability, because of Government cuts, to meet those demands, there have been real reductions in services.
In the past few years, the reduction in the quality of services has sometimes been savage. Every hon. Member knows in his heart that that is so. Opposition Members have acknowledged the fact and have protested against it whenever we have been presented with one of these orders. The level of the services has not been maintained. There have been real reductions in the quality of the services provided by local authorities—in some cases, savage reductions.
All that might have been justified—although not by me—if, somehow or other, the burden on the ratepayer had been kept to a reasonable level. One could have said to the ratepayers, "You may be getting a worse service, but at least you are not paying for a better one." What is the reality? My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden mentioned what has happened to domestic rates between 1978–79 and 1984–85. The average bill has risen from £132 to £326—an increase of 147 per cent. In other words, in the current year, domestic ratepayers are paying two and a half times as much as they paid in 1978–79, but receiving poorer services.
What is the reason for that huge increase? First of all, there is inflation. The Government try to blame the local authorities for everything, but they cannot blame them for the level of inflation.
Secondly, there are the constant and consistent reductions in the rate of grants. This is the first time that, in speaking on a rate support grant order, the Secretary of State has not mentioned the reduction of 4 per cent. in one year during the last Labour Government. I will answer that point in any case, as the Minister who replies to the debate may well make it.
When the Labour Government left office in 1979, the rate of grant was higher than it had been when we took over in 1974. It had risen from 68 per cent. to 68·5 per cent. The present Government cannot claim to be following some long-term trend. Between 1974 and 1979 we slightly enhanced the rate of grant. We certainly maintained the real rate of grant to local authorities.
Since 1978–79, the figure has fallen. Last year it was 60·2 per cent. and this year it is 56·6 per cent.—but even 56·6 per cent. is not the correct figure. There will inevitably be penalties during the year, so the real rate of grant will be below 56·6 per cent. It has already been reduced from 60·2 per cent. to 57·7 per cent. because of penalties in 1984–85. Ratepayers are bearing an even greater burden and getting poorer services because of wholesale reductions in grant, not just because of inflation.
We might be comforted if the outlook for 1985–86 was a little better. The sacrifices might have been worth while if the rate burden was unlikely to increase further, but that will not happen. As has been said, Dumfries and Galloway has been a good boy and gone along with the Secretary of State, yet it faces substantial increases in its 1985–86 rate burden. We know that the real increase in 1985–86 will be well above the rate of inflation. Circumstances will be even worse for domestic ratepayers.
The Secretary of State said today that if everyone sticks to the guidelines—they will not—there is no need to worry about domestic ratepayers, as they will face an increase of only 13 per cent. That figure was produced as if it was a triumph. Who is getting a 13 per cent. wage or salary increase in 1985–86? The teachers and local authority workers certainly will not if the Government have anything to do with it. However, the real average increase for domestic ratepayers in Scotland will be considerably more than 13 per cent. We do not know what the increase will be, but it will be far more than 13 per cent.
Even that average disguises large variations in authorities, depending on how the revaluation has worked out. Scottish domestic ratepayers face an average increase of 8 per cent., purely as a result of revaluation. The increase in Glasgow is 18 per cent. That could have been avoided, as there is no need to have a domestic element that is exactly the same—5p in the pound—for every rating authority in Scotland. Labour's legislation of 1975 and the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984 provide that the domestic element can be varied according to the circumstances of different areas. The 18 per cent. increase faced by Glasgow domestic ratepayers is not an inevitable consequence of revaluation, because the domestic element could have been adjusted.
The Government, who pretend to be the ratepayers' friend, have not bothered to use the flexibility available to them. The Government have taken ever more dictatorial powers over local authorities in Scotland so that they cannot function effectively as bastions of local democracy, which is what they ought to be and what they were before 1979. They are now subject to more restrictions, controls and dictation from St. Andrew's house. The result is poorer services and higher rates. It is not an attack on elected councillors as such, although that is serious enough, as we understand the anxiety and anger of councillors, not all of whom are members of the Labour party or the Liberal party. The attack on local councillors is an attack on ratepayers and the people of Scotland. They are paying more and getting less, despite all the bland words of the Secretary of State. The responsibility is the Secretary of State's, and the Government's.

Mr. Gerald Malone: I should like to deal with some general matters before considering some specific constituency ones.
Much has been said about the relevance of local authority expenditure in Scotland in the context of public spending as a whole. The Opposition have made light of that, but the Government are right to ensure that they do not consume more than a certain proportion of public expenditure. I endorse the Government's objective of reducing that proportion. Local authority expenditure


cannot be seen in isolation, as it is part of the Government's attempt to keep public expenditure within certain bounds and then to reduce it.
The Government's White Paper Cmnd. 9428 makes sad reading, as we learn from it that, despite the Government's attempts to bring public expenditure within constraints, they have not so far been successful. It would be nonsense to continue the fight against inflation while ignoring what local authorities do and allowing them to consume an ever greater proportion of public expenditure to finance services. Some Opposition Members have conceded that it is important that inflation be taken into account when local authorities budget. The Government's general objective of keeping inflation within reasonable bounds will eventually make it easier for local authorities to budget securely.
Although the Government have attempted to hold public spending steady in real terms in the past few years, and will continue to do so, it is vital that we ensure that local authority expenditure is kept within the bounds that the Government set. I am always amused to hear Opposition Members talking about the relationship between the Government and local authorities when it comes to restraining public expenditure. I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), but I do not intend to mention the 4 per cent. to which he referred in a form of pre-emptive strike. However, the system of control started in 1976 in an exceptionally loose form. The Government at that time recognised that there had to be some constraint on local authority spending.
It is interesting to see COSLA's view of what happened in 1976. It said that the guidelines were set out to help local authorities bring their plans within the constraints of overall public expenditure limits which were to be set by the Government. An important principle is enshrined there. It shows and confirms that COSLA's view, when it was probably working with a Government with whom it had political sympathy, was that there was a genuine objective and that it should work within public expenditure guidelines set by the Government. That has changed. It has since become ever more difficult to ensure that local authorities keep within the guidelines. That is why we have had legislation and now have on order on the subject.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am especially grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as one of the disadvantages of having a Labour majority in Scotland is that Labour Members listen to more speeches than they make. I heard the hon. Gentleman speak last night, I am listening to him again today, and I might not be able to speak myself. He referred to COSLA in 1976. I was active in that organisation then. In 1976 the guidelines were accepted as indicative, rather than definitive, and were regarded as such by the Government and by COSLA. Moreover, my recollection is that no one had political control in COSLA at that time.

Mr. Malone: My point is that there was co-operation with the principle, which I believe is important, namely, that central Government public expenditure limits should be taken seriously into account by local authorities. That principle has been lost sight of. Over the past eight years there has been a departure from a genuinely helpful principle.
While I am dealing with that point, perhaps I may refer to an intervention during the speech of my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I could not understand from the hon. Gentleman's intervention what it is that the Opposition want. I took his remarks to mean that rate income should not be assessed in terms of overall public expenditure totals and that he would be happy if local authorities levied rates up to any amount that they wished without central Government control in any shape or form.
If that is the implication of the hon. Gentleman's argument, it will be sad indeed for the ratepayers of Aberdeen. It is a policy of irresponsibility. It is absurd and naive to suggest that whatever rate is levied, it should not be considered when looking at public expenditure as a whole. Of course what is levied in rates affects the economy as a whole. It will affect the overall demand in the economy by reducing the amount of spending power that lies in the hands of the purchaser. For Opposition Members to say that it is not relevant is to fly completely in the face of the facts.
According to Aberdeen's assessment of the -matter, if it abides by the guidelines there will be a rates increase that is totally in line with my right hon. Friend's statement, namely, 13 per cent. Therefore, Aberdeen is art average case. However, that is not what Aberdeen is planning to do. If Aberdeen tries to operate outwith the guidelines, the projected increase in rates is 42·2 per cent. That is an absurd and irresponsible approach for Aberdeen district council to adopt. I hope that it will reconsider its decision before it fixes the rate, so as to ensure that it comes within the Government's guidelines.
The right hon. Member for Govan, from a sedentary position, seems to be saying that 13 per cent. is above the rate of inflation, and I take his point, but he must remember that another element to be taken into account is the change in the balance because of the client group approach and the way in which rate support grant is redistributed between Grampian regional council and Aberdeen district council. It is interesting to note that no representations have been made to me by the Grampian regional council, or by COSLA on behalf of the council, about the formula that has been adopted. Of course there must be a change in the balance. As soon as all the figures are provided, perhaps this will•be compensated for by the regional rate when it is fixed.

Mr. Bruce: Would the hon. Gentleman care to defend not only that rate increase but the fact that, of the four cities in Scotland, the Government's contribution to Aberdeen's rate support grant has been reduced from 37·3 per cent. in the previous year to 21·5 per cent., compared with other cities whose grant is either stable or has increased? Would the hon. Member care to defend that policy to the ratepayers of Aberdeen?

Mr. Malone: It depends upon the figure from which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is starting. Aberdeen is being treated relatively fairly in the guidelines. It depends upon whether the hon. Gentleman believes that the guidelines are reasonable, or that the inflated budget of Aberdeen district council is reasonable. I suggest that the latter is not reasonable. When one looks at the suggestions of Aberdeen district council to the people of Aberdeen about which items of expenditure should be cut in order to come within the guidelines, one begins to understand the political essence of the argument.
Aberdeen district council says that it will close the Bon Accord baths, certain libraries and various services, which will hit individual ratepayers. Such closures and cuts are being suggested for political motives. There are many other ways in which the administration of Aberdeen could be pared.

Mr. Robin Cook: How?

Mr. Malone: If the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who is shouting "How?" from a sedentary position, had been here yesterday he would have heard the point that I made, that interest charges in Aberdeen are substantial and that Aberdeen could reduce the capital borrowings upon which it pays those charges by continuing to sell enthusiastically its stock of council houses. There are many ways in which expenditure can be reduced. I hope that Aberdeen district council will think again about its priorities. I assure the House that at least the Conservative group on Aberdeen district council will, during the course of the next few weeks, produce a detailed programme to counter what I believe to be a series of vindictive cuts which are being suggested by the council.
On the question of the client group approach and the way in which it is affecting the distribution of rate support grant, I was very interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make the point in his opening remarks that the client group approach would be continually observed and reviewed with a view to refining the way in which it applies to local authorities. I presume that by those remarks my right hon. Friend meant both regional and district authorities. I hope that he will continue to pursue that policy and the way in which the client group approach is applied to Grampian region as a whole.
My right hon. Friend will be well aware that Grampian region is unusual compared with the rest of Scotland. The population is growing substantially. The client group calculation is based upon statistics which are out of date and which lead to a shortfall in Grampian regional council's entitlement to support from the Government. Although the response that I have received to date from the Government has been negative, I hope that the undertaking that has been given by my right hon. Friend constantly to review the way in which the client group approach is calculated and applied to local authorities, and to Grampian region in particular means that there will be a review of the way in which future formulaes are fixed.
These are extremely complex matters. They will be difficult for some Scottish local authorities to cope with. However, at the end of the day they underlie the Government's commitment to contain public expenditure within resonable bounds. That is the essence of our debate. I do not believe that these matters will have the effect upon local authorities that is being suggested by the Opposition. In some senses they will be difficult to cope with, but it is far from impossible for local authorities to cope with them. If local authorities approach the problem with good will and as constructively as they were prepared to approach it under a Labour Government in 1976, I see no reason why they should not come within the guidelines and be able to make use of the support that the Government are to give them this year, without any real detriment to the services that they offer to their ratepayers.

Mr. David Lambie: I have spoken in all the rate support grant and housing support grant debates that have taken place since I became a Member of parliament in 1970. Tonight I shall oppose the Government's proposed rate support grant, as I have opposed the rate support grant of not only previous Conservative Governments but previous Labour Governments, including the Labour Government of 1976. I can count my hon. Friends the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) as part of a team that used to organise opposition to the rate support grants of both Labour and Conservative Governments. When we started that campaign we were told that we dare not vote against the rate support grant order because to do so would mean that the local authorities would have no money, their financial structure would collapse and all the workers would be after us because they would not receive any wages.
That was at a time when the rate support grant order was discussed at the end of November. We are now discussing it at the end of January. Luckily, one learns through experience that the advice given to a new Member is not always the correct advice. Labour Members, and a few Conservative Members, have consistently opposed the Government and their financial proposals for local authorities.
We have seen, and we are seeing again tonight, an attack by the Government on the power and resources of local authorities. We have gradually seen a reduction in the power of local authorities and more central control at a time when the burden of taxation has been shifted by the Government from the national to the local exchequer.
I listened carefully to the Secretary of State tonight and I still cannot understand why the rate support grant for 1985–86 has been reduced to 56·6 per cent. of the relevant local government expenditure—a drop from the 1980–81 position of 68·5 per cent. of the relevant expenditure. I cannot understand why the Government do not accept that they are following the Treasury's line of cutting back on public expenditure. When the Under-Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will give us and the ratepayers of Scotland some explanation of why he is following so meekly behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy.
Local authorities have been complaining since 1980–81 that the Secretary of State assumed in his settlements total relevant expenditure which was too low, having regard to the real and urgent needs of local authority services in Scotland, and which showed no significant increase in real terms. I shall not develop that argument, because it was fully developed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). He also asked some relevant questions to which I hope we have the answers.
At the same time, the percentage to be met by the rate support grant has been cut year by year, with serious consequences for all Scottish ratepayers. This year the situation has been made worse for district councils by a change in the distribution formula, which has reduced their share of the needs element in the grant from 9 per cent. to 6·5 per cent.
Again, I listened carefully to the Secretary of State for some explanation of such a change at this time — a change in the distribution formula reflecting the percentages given to the regional and district authorities. I received no answer. I hope that the Under-Secretary of


State will try to give us an answer tonight. Why are we making this change at this time when we have all the other changes associated with revaluation?
My constituency is within Cunninghame district. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) although belonging to a different political party, will recognise that our council has tried to maintain local services and to keep a reasonable level of rent and rates. But it is finding great difficulty in maintaining the services which people expect and keeping rents and rates at a reasonable level. A statement given to me by the chief executive of Cunninghame district council shows a frightening position, especially for the ratepayers.
In the draft estimates for the next financial year net expenditure is up by £211,000–1·29 per cent. over the coming year. That is against a background of a 4 to 5 per cent. increase in the rate of inflation. Therefore, the council has been trying to maintain its services without increasing costs. It will manage to do that, if the estimates are accepted, against a rate of inflation set by the Government of between 4 and 5 per cent.
Because of Government action in taking back part of the current rate support grant, the council will probably start the year at 31 March with a deficit of £200,000. That compares with a credit balance of £700,000 at the beginning of 1984–85. The rate support grant needs element has been reduced by £1,245,000 and is likely to be further reduced, possibly by some £700,000.
There are also serious doubts about the sum that will be received by the council as the rate support grant resources element. I hope that we shall have some information on that, either now or in the near future.
On the proposed budget, the total amount payable by ratepayers will increase by nearly £1·5 million — an increase of 13·01 per cent. over the 1984–85 figure. Of that increase, £211,000, roughly 1·87 per cent., is because of increased expenditure by the council, and £264,000–2·35 per cent.—is because of changes in the balances. Nearly £1 million—8·79 per cent.—is because of the withdrawal of the Government's support through the rate support grant. With that amount of withdrawal, no council can keep within the guidelines and still play fair with the ratepayers on services.
Due to revaluation, it is not possible to compare the rate poundages, as has been stated often tonight, in 1984–85 and in 1985–86. But examples of district rates increases, based on overall changes in the rateable value which we already know, show startling increases for domestic ratepayers. I put those figures to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and remind him of them and I hope that he will remember them when he votes tonight.
In public sector housing, we shall see an average increase in rates not of 13·01 per cent., as I have already quoted from the estimates, but, because of the change in the revaluation, of 30 per cent.
The owner-occupier, the backbone of the Tory vote in our area, will face a percentage increase, because of the changes in the revaluation, of 37·25 per cent. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman will explain to all the Tory voters in Arran, West Kilbride, Fairlie and Largs an increase of 37·25 per cent. That is not because of the sensible council's policy but because of policies forced on it by the Government and the implications of not only the housing support grant order but the rate support grant order that we are discussing tonight.
Before the election I represented Central Ayrshire which spread from Cunninghame into the neighbouring district council of Kyle and Carrick, for which at that time I had the honour of sharing responsibility with the Secretary of State. I sometimes doubt whether the district council of Kyle and Carrick still has a Tory majority, because the Tories keep expelling people, but unfortunately the Labour party does so too, which maintains the balance. But giving Mr. Gibson McDonald the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he is still a Tory, even Kyle and Carrick, with a Tory majority, is finding itself in great difficulty in trying to be fair to the ratepayers.
The latest estimates prepared for the council show that an increase of 10·5 per cent. is needed in the average district rate. That is clawback of more than £1 mil nor from local ratepayers. I hope that the Secretary of State can answer the ratepayers in Troon and Ayr for that clobber.
That increase does not take into account the effects of revaluation of domestic ratepayers. Everyone has spoken about that, and I highlighted the case of Cunninghame. The average increase in domestic valuations in Scotland is 17 per cent. The Secretary of State made great play of the fact that he has given a subsidy of 9 per cent., but that leaves 8 per cent. to be met by domestic ratepayers. Will that subsidy of 9 per cent. be paid this year only or will it be paid from now until the next revaluation? If it is only to be paid this year, the Secretary of State is conning our people and getting Tory Back-Bench Members to support the order on the basis that he is giving what in his terms is, a substantial subsidy. If it is only to be paid this year, the Secretary of State will give the authorities nothing in the following four years and Conservative Members will find difficulty in justifying the increases in rates. If we add the two average percentage increases of 10·5 per cent. and 8 per cent., the Secretary of State's own domestic ratepayers will face an extra 18·5 per cent. this year, before any changes. That is a minimum figure.
I hope that the ratepayers of Troon and Ayr have long memories and remember the vicious action by the Strathclyde assessor during the 1978 revalution of their properties. The assessors are now doing to domestic ratepayers what was done in Kyle and Carrick, Troon, Prestwick and Ayr in 1978. I am sorry to say this when the Secretary of State is absent, but he will know that I am not attacking him but drawing the attention of his voters to his previous actions. In 1978, the Strathclyde assessor illegally assessed private houses in Troon, Prestwick and Ayr.
At that time, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was in opposition, and there was a Labour Government. He and I had numerous meetings with representatives of the ratepayers associations for Troon and Ayr. Together we led a deputation on behalf of ratepayers complaining about the illegal assessments on private houses by the Strathclyde assessor. I remember going with him to St. Andrew's house to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), who at the time was Minister with special responsibility for rating and valuation. We told him that the Strathclyde assessor had illegally fixed valuations on private houses in Troon and Ayr.
When an assessor fixes valuation levels, he must take into account rent levels in an open market—that is, where there is neither a surplus nor a shortage of houses.
Because there was no rental evidence, the assessor did not carry out the law and use rental evidence; instead he used capital values.
My point tonight is that this year, at the secret meeting before they started to look at revaluations, Scottish assessors decided to do what the assessor in Strathclyde did in 1978 and use capital values, which is illegal.
Following the last revaluation, about 50 ratepayers in Troon appealed to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court in Edinburgh: it has gone down in history as the Troon decision. They won their case because the Ayr assessor refused to provide the evidence on which he based his valuation; he had based it illegally on capital values, since there was no rental evidence. The ratepayers of Troon won their case and got substantial reductions in rates, some of which amounted to more than £1,000. The ratepayers had the full co-operation of the present Secretary of State for Scotland and me.
I was surprised, therefore, that the Secretary of State thought that this revaluation was the best thing since sliced bread. He implied that it was great because the English were losing and were unfortunate not to have had a revaluation since 1973. I was taught to believe that the English were cunning, and I know that they are, because most of their political parties have had the sense to stop revaluation until the rating system is examined.
Why does the Secretary of State not stick to the policy he advocated when he was in opposition? The revaluation must be halted. I know that it is difficult because time is short, but if we do not halt it, ratepayers will face tremendous increases. Moreover, domestic ratepayers, council tenants and Tory voters will be hammered by the new rate levels.
The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) also said that something would need to be done about the rating system. The Tories cannot get away with this. The Prime Minister and her Government remain committed to the abolition of the rating system. Why do they not stand up and say so? Why all this shilly-shallying? It was in the 1974 manifesto, but not in the 1979 manifesto. I am a traditionalist and believe that, if something is in a manifesto, it should be justified and carried out.
The Prime Minister remains committed to the abolition of the rating system. Indeed, it is time that we examined the system. I used to believe in keeping local democracy in the family. That was in the good old days of Labour and traditional Tory Governments—Governments that used to be led by Lord Stockton, who is now making tremendous speeches in another place. But now we are dealing with hard-hearted, first-generation men, like the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who have neither heart nor soul, and who look at the balance sheet and carry out anything that goes below the line.
The Opposition want the revaluation halted, and a reconsideration of the system of local government finance. Despite my family's tradition in local government, and the fear of the threat to local democracy, I now believe that we should scrap the rating system. If we Cannot find another method, we should use 100 per cent. Government grants. At present, the Government are paying half the money, but they have put many restrictions on the spending of the other half. We wish to return to square one.
To give us time to reconsider the system, we should introduce 100 per cent. Government grants and allow local authorities to work within them to the best of their ability. We shall then know who to blame. It is unfortunate that hon. Members, who must take the decision, are not at the sharp end. When our constituents come to our surgeries and complain that services have been cut, and rents and rates increased, we say to them, "It is not our fault. It is your local councillors' responsibility." But it is our responsibility, and we must protect local councillors.
I hope that many Conservative Members will get off their knees tonight and come into our Lobby to take action against the policies of this Government. If ever action was needed, it is tonight.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), although I disagree with his suggestion of transferring the antagonism of our electors back to the local council. We should tell them clearly that the fault is entirely that of central Government. If hon. Members thought that the hon. Gentleman's attack was robust, they should have met his father. During the 1950s and 1960s I met Provost Lambie of Saltcoats at the Convention of Royal Boroughs; he was fighting the Scottish Office as hard then as the hon. Gentleman is now.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State put up a couple of Aunt Sallies simply to knock them down. He said that a story being put about by people opposed to the Government suggested that in the old days local authorities were free to spend what they wished. I have long experience of government at town council and county council level, and I do not remember, even in the most comfortable times, being allowed to spend what we wished. The Secretary of State is right: the position was never so cushy that authorities could spend what they wished. However, no one in the Opposition has suggested that there was a time when that happened.
When considering such matters, we must bear in mind the functions that have been laid on local authorities by Parliament. When that was first done, the Government of the day funded those functions properly. However, gradually, the finance for those functions has been withdrawn by the Government, yet they and certainly the local residents expect the functions to be carried out at the same level as before.
The Secretary of State said that another common story was that services in local authorities had been cut almost to nothing. That is also perfectly true. There has been a severe erosion of the services which the public are entitled to receive from local authorities. The Government talk about the necessity for savings, but some of those savings are unwise. The unpainted council house window this year becomes the window that must be replaced in a few years' time. It is extremely short-sighted economy, even from the Government's point of view.
It is completely false to say that in recent years local authorities have gone on an irresponsible spending spree. The Secretary of State said that he appreciated that he was creating problems for some authorities. He is creating problems for them all. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) talked about guidelines, but my local authority in the Western Isles cannot get near to the guidelines laid down by the Scottish Office; goodness knows, it is a mean enough limit for the council to reach.
In 1981–82, the rate support grant for Scotland made up almost 64 per cent. of local authority expenditure. In 1975, it made up about 80 per cent.

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the difficulty that the Western Isles council has in meeting the guidelines. I know that he would wish to be fair. Is it not true that this order will mean an increase in the rate support grant for the Western Isles of £714,000? It is one of the few authorities whose rate support grant will be increased, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the fact.

Mr. Stewart: I certainly do, but it falls far short of the amount needed. From the document produced by the council and circulated to all Scottish Members, if the Minister's claim is correct, the council would have received an additional £5·8 million during the past two or three years.
In 1985–86, the rate support grant will make up 56·5 per cent. of local government spending, and less money will be made available next year than this year.

Mr. Tom Clarke: As the Western Isles authority, whose case the right hon. Gentleman is representing so well this evening, is an all-purpose authority, it is impossible for the Minister to make comparisons with regions and districts which, by their nature, have separate functions.

Mr. Stewart: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point entirely.
The current expenditure guidelines, introduced by the Labour Government in 1976 and applied punitively by the Conservative Government since 1981, are not easily understood and seem to be applied arbitrarily and unfairly. The guidelines were recently made mandatory under the Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Act 1984. If they follow the guidelines, which must be applied practically, all Scottish district councils will have to reduce expenditure by as much as 7 or 8 per cent. The average reduction will be 5 per cent., which of course is in addition to any previous reduction.
Yesterday, in opening the debate on housing support grant, the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)—said that the Scottish Office has reached agreement on a formula with COSLA. I know that he did not intend to pull the wool over the eyes of hon. Members, but if that was reported in the press, the public might get an entirely wrong impression. I and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) met representatives of COSLA today, who told us that, in relation to housing support grant and rate support grant, the Scottish Office had united all Scottish councils in opposition to its plans.
Opposition to the policies of the colonial administration in Edinburgh extends beyond the councils. Even the Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses in Scotland—this should be of some concern to Ministers—has slammed the cuts in rate support grant. The secretary of the federation wrote to the Secretary of State saying that he was "horrified" by the extent of the cut, and he warned that the Conservative party was in great danger of losing traditional areas of support. I sincerely hope that his assessment is correct. The Conservatives may not be unduly worried. They are getting so thin on the ground now that—

Mr. Ancram: We got ten times what you got!

Mr. Donald Stewart: The Conservative party got ten times what we got, but we are on the way up and they are on the way down. The Conservatives in Scotland are like the buffalo in America: there are a few still in awkward pockets, but the great herds have gone for ever.
This year's cuts will be made even more difficult to bear in Scotland because of the impending revaluation. I support the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South in his suggestion that the revaluation ought to be postponed. Because of this the domestic ratepayer in Scotland could be faced with rates increases of up to 25 per cent. in some areas. I could go into more detail and give more facts and figures about these effects, but I want to concentrate now on the underlying problem which has left Scotland in the present situation.
Scotland has been starved of funds by the Government. The Secretary of State, who only performs the role of a colonial governor, is virtually powerless to do anything about the situation. The squeeze on Scotland has been carried out by the English Cabinet and the English Treasury.
I have studied the latest public expenditure plans. In the next three financial years, the Scottish block suffers more cuts in real terms. The estimated outturn for 1984–85 is £6·8 billion. For 1987–88 the figure in real terms will be only £6·2 billion. I want the Minister to deal w ith that point. Apart from what the Minister is doing for local authorities, the Scottish slice of the cake from the United Kingdom Treasury is being reduced by the Government.
An examination of the situation over a longer period emphasises the cuts. In 1979–80 the Scottish block comprised 5·9 per cent. of the United Kingdom total, and in 1987–88 we will have only 5·15 per cent. The policy will impoverish Scotland, even though we could and should be one of the wealthiest nations in Europe, if not in the world.
The majority of people and political organisations in Scotland oppose the cuts in rate support grant and the policies of the Government towards Scotland in general, but the opposition to the Government will be impotent unless it takes political action to ensure that Scotland does not suffer any longer at the hands of an uncaring and hostile London Government. Those who claim to speak for Scotland can give force to their claim if they join the struggle for an independent Scottish Government. That is the reality which they will all have to face at the end of the day.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the points made by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) about public expenditure. The test of the wealth of a country, or a nation as he would describe it, lies not so much in how much is spent by the Government, as in how much is created in the private sector. It is odd that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to argue for a wealthy and prosperous Scotland while arguing against the Government's public expenditure strategy, which is to increase the proportion of the gross domestic product not spent by the Government.
While listening to some of the arguments on public expenditure which have been advanced by Opposition Members I was struck by a feeling of astonishment and amazement because, if any criticism is to be made of the Government's public expenditure policy, it should come


from the Conservative Benches. The fact is that the Government have not cut public expenditure at all, and the White Paper published this week makes it clear that the Government have abandoned all attempts to cut public expenditure. They have decided to content themselves with containing it at its present level and achieving a level of growth in the economy that will reduce it as a proportion of the gross domestic product.
As local government is responsible for spending some 51 per cent. of the allocation which is in the gift of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office, it is surely self-evident to any hon. Member, whatever his political persuasion, that local government must play a part in exercising restraint. This is true for the country as a whole. The proportion is approximately 25 per cent. of all public expenditure.
What is most astonishing in listening to the debate is to realise that no Opposition Member has been honest enough to admit that the problem that we face is that in 1978–79, when the Conservatives came to power, local authority expenditure was 2 per cent. less in real terms than it is now. We have heard of the expectation in the representations of COSLA and in the speeches of some Opposition Members that somehow or other local government should be insulated from the problems which beset the rest of the economy and that local authorities should be entitled, as of right, to expect their incomes to go up in line with or beyond inflation because of their particular difficulties.
I find that remarkable. Do opposition Members not talk to the people whom they represent, to the business community and to people on fixed incomes? Do they not recognise that for the vast majority of people the expectation that their incomes, whether they be businesses or private individuals, can increase year after year in line with or ahead of inflation would be considered absurd? Despite that, all the debate about local government is conducted in that context.
A similar situation exists with respect to manpower levels. After the blizzard which the Government are supposed to have imposed on local government in September 1984, the manpower levels in Scotland stood at 252,000, and in 1976 they stood at 255,000. After the Labour Government had had their go at reducing local authority expenditure and manpower levels, the figure fell to 245,000. Thus, local authority manpower levels today are some 7,000 ahead of what they were in 1976.

Mr. Dewar: What about housing benefit?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asks about housing benefit. Not even this Government, whom he claims are vindictive in their attacks on local government, have tried to do what his Government did, which was to cut manpower levels in one year by some 10,000. Would that they were able to achieve that, and would that they were able to have the sort of support that Opposition Members gave to the then Labour Government. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) pointed out, COSLA gave its support with enthusiasm. It is astonishing that the guidelines presented then were guidelines to assist local authorities.

Mr. Tom Clarke: It astonishes me that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) should present himself

as a historian on COSLA. Has he enough respect for COSLA and for local government to read the record of that period? If he does, he will find that COSLA was opposed to the manpower reductions. If he has any doubts about that, will he consult the then vice-chairman, who happened to be myself, and I will confirm that that was so?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he could take the matter up with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, whom I may have misrepresented, and I take the hon. Gentleman's word for it and withdraw what I said.
If I take what the hon. Gentleman says at its value, no doubt when I read the record I will find that COSLA said that it was impossible to achieve these reductions, that there would be endless hardship and that local government would suffer. The fact that the then Government managed to do this shows what COSLA' s special pleading is worth. We hear this special pleading from local government in terms of its right to have its resources increased over and above inflation year after year and we have seen the political irresponsibility of many local authorities which supposedly care about their constituents. We have seen the phenomenon of local authorities deliberately making cuts where they are going to hurt most, where they will result in the biggest newspaper headlines and where they will have the greatest impact on the local community, despite the sure and certain knowledge that they could achieve economies without imposing hardship.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Where?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall endeavour to deal with that.
I deal next with two authorities in my area, Stirling district council and Central region. From my correspondence as a Member of Parliament, I was astonished to find that as a result of Government cuts, Central region does not have enough money to fit a handrail to an old lady's bath. I find that Central region cannot operate community buses any more. I also find that there is no money to teach music and special subjects in the schools, and that the district has no money with which to carry out repairs and maintenance. The region apparently has no money for repairs to roads, and the district has no money for the pavements. The region apparently cannot do anything about flooding or any of the other things, because of Government cuts. Central region cannot do anything either about helping teachers where alterations have been made in mid-term.
All of those things involve relatively small sums of money — [Interruption.] The last case that I cited involved Killearn primary school. The authority does not have enough money to avoid disruption to all the classes in that school in the middle of the year, because that would cost £ 11,000 and it would incur penalties if it spent that money, but of course that is not true. The council does not have £11,000, but it has £250,000 to give to striking miners' families. Oh yes, it can do that! Fife has £1·5 million to give to striking miners' families, Glasgow has £30,000 and Edinburgh has £25,000, as well as £5,000 to give every month to striking miners' families. Of the 326 miners' families in the Edinburgh area, 274 have gone back to work, so Edinburgh is supporting not the mining community, but the political activists.
The list is endless and I could go through authority after authority. For example, Falkirk, Stirling and Clackmannan have £3,000 a week to give away, yet they have the nerve to argue that they do not have the resources with which to carry out their basic functions. I have just seen my district council. Apparently, six councillors need to come to Westminster to lobby me without having made prior arrangements. They put in green cards without telling me that they were coming, so it took some time before we met each other. It took six councillors to come to tell me of the council's views on the Government proposals.
As I live in the constituency and am in Stirling virtually all the time when I am up there, that seems astonishing, but it is even more astonishing that I have not seen those councillors in the Gallery listening to the debate, although I arranged two tickets for them — [HON. MEMBERS: "They were there."] They may have been there earlier, but they are not here now and they seem to have misinterpreted the meaning of the phrase, to make one's case at the Bar of the House. If local authorities expect to be taken seriously about expenditure, it is high time that they showed themselves to their ratepayers and to the Government as being concerned about expenditure levels.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Gentleman should not insult councillors who made a long and difficult journey to Westminster to get hold of him. Many of us know the difficulty of getting hold of the hon. Gentleman in his own area. He does not even advertise exactly where his surgeries are, and constituents have to be vetted by the local party machine before they get an interview with him. I know, because I am a constituent of his. On more than one occasion, when local authorities have arranged meetings with all the local Members of Parliament, the Labour Members have turned up to a man, while the hon. Gentleman has not even bothered to do so. No wonder those councillors had to come to London to get a grip of him.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he has something to say in the debate, I hope that his argument will be a little firmer. As he well knows, my surgeries are advertised regularly. There is one this Friday, which will have 10-minute appointments, and which will last from 2.30 pm to 6.30 pm. The hon. Gentleman knows that only too well. I mean no offence to him or to other Opposition Members, but there is a tendency for meetings to be fixed and for invitations to be sent to me at seven days' notice. I must say to those Labour Members in Central region that I do not know how they manage to represent their constituency interests if they are available at that sort of notice to attend meetings with Central region. I am busy meeting people in my constituency and doing my job as a Member of Parliament—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I think that we are moving away from the subject of Scottish rates. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to that.

Mr. Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Gentleman told a lie about why he did not come. He was on television.

Mr. Forsyth: I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark. Will he withdraw it? He said that I told a lie

about being unable to attend and that I was on television, but that is untrue. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a letter. Will he please withdraw his remark? I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can do so.

Mr. Canavan: I shall speak now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much. I am glad to have an opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—

Mr. Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) was responding to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

Mr. Canavan: I thought that the hon. Member for Stirling had finished his speech, and I was about to begin mine.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Forsyth.

Mr. Forsyth: I had asked the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) to withdraw his remark. He said that I had told a lie and that I was on television. That is completely untrue. He knows that I wrote a letter to Central region explaining why I could not be at the meeting. I think, from memory, that I had five or six engagements that day, of which appearing on television was one. The television interview was live at the BBC, and was at 11 pm. I take it that the meeting did not go on until then. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw his remarks? I give way for him to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know which hon. Member is being referred to. I did not hear the remark that is alleged to have been made.

Mr. Forsyth: It seems to me—

Mr. Ewing: I did not rise earlier, because the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has not yet been here long enough to assume the powers of Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assumed that he would appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and would not take your powers unto himself. However, I stand by what I said. The hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to Central region saying that he was at the Wallace high school in Stirling, when in fact he was on television. I shall not withdraw my remark, because it is absolutely true. The hon. Gentleman knows it to be true, and I shall not in any circumstances protect the hon. Gentleman from his own folly. He said that he was at an evening engagement—a cheese and wine party at Wallace high school—when he was on BBC television debating the miners' dispute and attacking the miners.

Mr. Forsyth: I do not want to take up too much time, because there are more important matters before us, but I went to the "Any Questions" session at the Wallace high school, stayed for a glass of wine and drove straight to Glasgow and appeared on a programme. We will get that information confirmed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the good sense and courtesy to withdraw his remarks—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Now that he have had explanation and counter-explanation, can we get back to the subject under debate?

Mr. Forsyth: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it really is too much that the argument seems to have been given over to personal abuse.
Stirling district and others have said that they are concerned about housing. Although we are not discussing housing tonight, it is indicative of their attitude to expenditure that they refuse to go out and sell council houses, although they say that they are concerned about housing, and Scottish authorities can use all of their receipts for housing purposes. It is astonishing that my district council can say that it is concerned for the ratepayer—

Mr. Younger: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but it was in the clear hearing of every hon. Member that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) stated that my hon. Friend had told a lie. Irrespective of the issue, I think that that is an unparliamentary expression and it would be helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you could clear up the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have said, I did not hear the remark. If it was made by any hon. Member about any other hon. Member, it was certainly unparliamentary and discourteous and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Ewing: In the interests of good order and to facilitate the debate—and in due deference only to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I withdraw the remark. I do so if I have offended you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in withdrawing the remark.
I find it difficult to believe the representations that are made, for example by Stirling district council, to the effect that the Secretary of State is so reducing the rate support grant that it is unable to provide services, when that council can find £50,000 for Christmas lights, can put on laser displays, can combine with other authorities and the Central regional council to deliver through letterboxes at Christmas time a board game in four colours, supposedly to explain the difficulties of running a district council on a tight budget, can spend £10,000 on setting up a women's committee and can send councillors on beanos not only to Westminster but to East Germany. The tragedy is that those councillors were not given a one-way ticket.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman should accept that this has been an exceptional week in the House of Commons, with the whole district council policy committee of COSLA being in attendance at the House. Its members came here to brief hon. Members, which they did most effectively, though they had some difficulty in catching up with most Conservative Members.
On the substantive point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the needs element of Stirling's rate support grant has been cut from £1·6 million last year to £800,000 this year. Does he think that that is fair and just? Does he support that cut of 50 per cent. in the needs element of Stirling's rate support grant?

Mr. Forsyth: Not only is it fair and just, but, in view of the way in which Stirling district council has wasted resources, it is, if anything, over-generous. I am conscious of the passage of time, otherwise I would give a longer list of examples of the activities on which that council is spending money. Not only is it indulging in extravagant expenditure, it is incurring open-ended expenditure. For

example, it has said that it will sue the National Coal Board and, if need be, take the case to the House of Lords, over the closure of Polmaise.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Although I do not represent a Scottish constituency, my hon. Friend might care to acknowledge that, for example, in Cannock we had Christmas lights for the first time in 14 years, and those lights were funded entirely by voluntary subscriptions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with Scotland, not Cannock.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) for making that point. Indeed, I put it to Stirling district council that it might get the local business men, whom we were told benefited from the display, to pay. The council responded that the business men much preferred the district council to pay.

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: I have given way generously. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not doing so again, although I always find his interventions entertaining.
Even more worrying is the way in which some district councils are not only being extravagant in their expenditure, but are using it for political purposes, and in so doing are going out of their way to undermine the need to obtain value for money for their ratepayers. I have in mind a resolution passed by Stirling district council not to allow to tender firms associated with, or which had as customers, companies which crossed miners' picket lines — [Interruption.] I understand that that resolution has been circulated widely among other authorities.
Another example is that of Dumbarton, which has excluded Tarmac from its tender list on the ground that that company once did work at Greenham common. That is disgraceful, for it is a clear attempt to prevent competition and the ratepayers from getting the best value for money.
My right hon. Friend will have received a large number of representations about hard-pressed authorities, and I have spoken of Stirling. However, there are others. For example, Edinburgh can find £1,100 for posters about Chile and can support "Scientists Against Nuclear Arms". It can find £2,000 for a miners' wives art exhibition and money to support the Scottish Labour party history society, which presumably will not be a long-term open-ended commitment. It can also find money for a number of other groups. Indeed, it found a total of £37,000 for donations to Left-wing causes and groups.
While I welcome the order, I hope that my right hon. Friend will focus attention on the abuses that occur, because ratepayers find it difficult to understand how it is possible for local authorities to continue to sting them and incur expenditure in the ways that I have described.
I listened to the representations made by COSLA, and I pay tribute to the care with which it prepared its case. It is clear that the rating system is creaking. There is a feeling abroad that we may be testing it to destruction. As a system, it is not only unfair and bears no relation to the cost of the services provided, but it has clearly demonstrated that it is capable of encouraging irresponsible rating and other actions by local authorities.
I wonder how long the Government and my party can hide behind the need for general agreement. We did not


go for general agreement when we decided on our policies, which I fully support, for example, of denationalisation or the introduction of Trident. The time and energy of Ministers and their civil servants would be better spent finding the means for reform rather than for controlling irresponsible authorities.
I find myself in curious agreement with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), in that he has come full circle and wants a system by which 100 per cent. of the funding comes from central Government, yet he complains about the Government controlling local authorities from the centre. I believe that 100 per cent. funding by central Government would represent the worst of all worlds.
However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the rating system may be at the end of its days. Accordingly, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the idea of a poll tax, and I would go with him in funding education from central Government. We should, at the same time, increase benefit levels and pensions to reflect the average level in Scotland of poll tax. Everybody would then have an incentive to see that local authorities behaved responsibly.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise that he has enthusiastic support from these Benches for what he is doing, that we have not been taken in by the arguments of Labour-controlled councils and that we are concerned about the pressure on the rating system due to their irresponsibility. We are concerned for Conservative councils which have behaved responsibly but which are suffering. We are looking for radical change.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the debate is to conclude at a reasonable hour, hon. Members will have to exercise more restraint in the length of their speeches.

Dame Judith Hart: I shall not even attempt to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) in his astonishing exercise in how to make friends and influence people. I think that he made more enemies in his lengthy speech than most people do in a lifetime in the House. I shall not attempt to follow his nonsense.
I have one thing in common with the hon. Gentleman. Tonight I shall speak about a council the political opinions of which I do not share. The hon. Gentleman does not share the opinions of his district council — that is abundantly clear. Hamilton district is in my area. Its concerns are great; it is deeply alarmed about all that is happening, particularly about the housing support grant, which was discussed yesterday. However, my major council is Clydesdale. The Secretary of State talked about highly political local authorities. Like the hon. Member for Stirling, he uses the word "political" to describe anything with which he does not agree.
Clydesdale has a majority that is predominantly Conservative, with a couple of Right-wing Scottish Nationalists. Therefore, my party is in the minority. I have seen my council and it has asked me to express to the Secretary of State its deep alarm at the consequences of the level of rate support grant that it will receive this year. It has been a comparatively well behaved council, by the Secretary of State's standards. It exceeded his guidelines in 1983–84 by some 14 per cent., but it believes that at the outturn of 1984–85, in a month or two, it will probably be shown that it is within the guidelines or very near them.
My area, in which Clydesdale district council is seeking to carry out its obligations to provide services, has a male unemployment rate that has hovered between 23 and 25 per cent. for the past two or three years. Most of the unemployed are long-term unemployed, and therefore on supplementary benefit. So quite a lot is needed, particularly for the young people who are unemployed, yet Clydesdale will have to have a standstill budget with no improvement in services in the coming year. It projects that it will need a 4p increase in the rates, which is an increase of 16·3 per cent. In the region, because of revaluation, it is expected that there will be an 18 per cent. increase. Therefore, Clydesdale will face high increases in rates, and it will be difficult for the council to provide the minimum level of service.
I should like to take up one point of detail to illustrate the nonsense of what is being done. The assessment of expenditure needs under the client group approach, is laid out in the Secretary of State's circular. There is an assessment of expenditure needs for Clydesdale district council for several different services. I should like to refer to two minor points first. According to the Secretary of State, in the coming year of 1985–86 there will have to be a reduction of 0·8 per cent. on environmental health and 0·6 per cent. on cleansing. I do not know how any authority can reasonably cut cleansing. I do not know what one has to do to cut cleansing. The streets do not stay cleaner because there is 0·6 per cent. less in the budget.

Mr. Ancram: Privatise the service.

Dame Judith Hart: The Minister may prefer that, but the normal consequence of privatisation is lower than average wages. As the wages in my part of Clydesdale are abysmally low, I do not think that there is an answer in that.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that this service should be privatised. The major point in Clydesdale's projected budget to which I should like to draw attention is administration of housing benefits. In the coming year there will have to be a reduction of 25 per cent. in the budget for administering housing benefits, yet there is a rapidly increasing number of long-term unemployed on supplementary benefit, which means that the proportion of the population of Clydesdale entitled to housing benefits, which must be administered by the council, is growing massively. How does a council cope with that problem with a 25 per cent. reduction in its budget? Perhaps the Minister has an answer, but I cannot find one.
Because of the high unemployment there are many needy people. Strathclyde region will have less to spend on community services and social work. It is a crazy business when the Government provide less to meet a need that is so clearly and devastatingly growing.
What is the background to all that? Some Conservative Members have said that we in the Opposition do not seem to understand what the economic basis is. Sometimes some of my hon. Friends talk as if the Secretary of State for Scotland is really quite a decent chap, but is just making mistakes and cannot win in the Cabinet against the Prime Minister and the Treasury. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman were present to hear me say this. I do not think that he is losing. He has shown himself to be as committed as any of the driest people in the Cabinet to the monetarist economic policies that the Prime Minister and the Government are pursuing. What is happening to rate


support grant and housing support grant is all part of that. It is not simply that one asks local authorities to cut their public expenditure; it is rather that one asks them to cut public expenditure so that there may be reductions in taxation. On the whole, that is the Government's policy.
The Government resist demands for increasing public expenditure as an employment-creating measure. Many of the aspects of increased public expenditure that are job-creating fall within the direct range of local authority spending, such as sewerage, roads, and house building, modernisation and repairs, which are all highly labour-intensive. Those services which offer possible future employment are being cut by the steps that the Government are taking.
The Government tell the local authorities that they may not engage in increased public expenditure, and in many cases they have to cut it in real terms. The Government say that in any case the ratepayers will have to pay an increase of anything between 15 per cent. and 50 per cent. in their rates. However, at the same time as doing that the Government are deflating further because they are taking money out of the economy. They are reducing consumer demand by allowing the ratepayers less money to spend on items that at least might represent a small stimulus to the economy. Of course, the situation will become worse.
The Blue Book on expenditure plans, which we debated on Tuesday, shows the expected plans for the next two years for local authorities on a United Kingdom basis. The increase in total spending by local authorities is to decrease at a rate well below that of inflation. In other words, real cuts are predicted for each of the next three years, allowing for inflation. Therefore, we are targeted on a programme that will have a severe impact on the economy and on the ability of local authorities simply to provide the necessary services, let alone improve them.
The difficulty is that among Scottish Conservative Members there are not the rebels whom we have seen in local government in England and Wales. What we have is the rebel who would like to go a great deal further, the sort who regards his Prime Minister as somewhat dangerously to the left, if we are to take the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling as an example. Nobody on the Conservative Benches has the courage to say that this is the wrong way forward. I can think of many right hon. and hon. Members who are prepared to do so in debates on rate-capping and local authority expenditure in England and Wales. What is wrong with the Scottish Tory Members of Parliament?

Mr. Canavan: They are all gutless.

Dame Judith Hart: My hon. Friend uses a word that is too indelicate for me to use, although I am prepared to accept it.

Mr. Canavan: They are spineless.

Dame Judith Hart: That word is not too indelicate. They are spineless. Not only do they lack courage, they lack the understanding to realise what they are doing and just what the Secretary of State is doing.
If there was ever a time when I thought that the Secretary of State was a nice sympathetic chap who, at the behest of the Cabinet, was having to do some rather nasty things that he did not go along with, that idea has disappeared out of the window.
We have heard that one day the right hon. Gentleman may become Secretary of State for Defence. He would have a real problem there, because big decisions will have to be taken about Trident. Earlier, we were asked what we would do to get more money for the local authorities. The answer is to cut out expenditure on Trident, settle the miners' strike instead of going hell bent for confrontation and save money there, increase public expenditure in general and reduce the amount of unemployment and supplementary benefits that have to be paid, and do something about finding a solution in the Falklands. All those taken together would result in a nice increase in expenditure for my council, which would be able to improve its services rather than cut them.
This is a disastrous evening for local government in Scotland. Most of all, it is a disastrous evening for the people who will suffer from the inability of local authorities to meet their needs.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The little ding-dong that we had earlier was a little unfortunate, because it obscured the fact that the Secretary of State's argument cannot be viewed in purely party political terms. As many hon. Members have said, the facts of what he is doing do not stand up to analysis. It is a pity to obscure that with rhetoric we have heard, particularly from the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who might have done better to recognise that many Conservative councillors are concerned about what the Government are doing to their councils and to their local communities.
We hear some of the general things that are simple facts and not party political matters. The latest settlement represents a reduction in the Government's contribution to local authority budgets, from 66·7 per cent. in 1981 to 56·6 per cent. now. That means that local authorities' overall total allowable expenditure—it is not money that the Government have given them, but what the Government are allowing them to spend—will go up by 5 per cent. Across the board, that means no growth. However, for that no-growth budget, the ratepayers will have to find, on average, 15 per cent. more next year, and the average varies considerably. For district councils, the figure is 34 per cent. on average, with some wide variations.
As has already been said, the Government are in no position to suggest that they have done anything for the ratepayer since they came to power, as they have consistently been instrumental in forcing up rates and reducing services. Therefore, it is no wonder that the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses is so angry and frustrated by what the Government have done. It realises, and it has made clear that it realises, that its argument is not with the local authorities but with the Secretary of State. As the secretary of the federation said about the Secretary of State:
We are ready to meet him at any time. The Government are the major cause of rate rises in 1985–86, and perhaps we are wasting our time talking only to local authorities under the mandatory Consultation with Non-Domestic Ratepayers".
If the Government have upset a body such as that, they have few friends north of the border.
The districts are facing particular difficulties as a result of this settlement. Their share of the total settlement has been reduced in one year from 9 per cent. to 6·6 per cent., which is a cash reduction of £36·4 million. No wonder that


the settlement has been greeted with widespread dismay. The district councils have been faced with an impossible task. The hon. Member for Stirling may like to rant about Stirling council, but that is not the only council that has complained. Authorities such as Nairn, Gordon, Perth and Kinross, Ettrick and Lauderdale, hardly bastions of the Socialist revolution, or determined to bring down the Government and defy them at all costs. When such councils feel like that, the Government cannot defend what they are doing. They are hopelessly undermining the mutual respect that should exist between Government and local authorities.
While the district councils have been excessively penalised, it would be folly to pretend that the regional councils have benefited. Once or twice, the fact that the regional councils have been given slightly more of the allocation has obscured the fact that there is still a reduction. Their allocation has been cut by £24·6 million, which is just under 2 per cent.
Given that the public expenditure figures have been produced this week, it is worth looking at some of the major sectors where the cuts will fall. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred particularly to education, which is the biggest single item within local authority expenditure, and the major item for regional councils. However, the total allowable increase in local authority spending for education is 3·9 per cent., which is below the level of inflation. The Secretary of State may say that we have falling school rolls, but most people would have thought that that was an opportunity to re-invest in education rather than cut it. In real terms, with the allowance for inflation, local authorities should have been allowed an extra £20 million for their education budget.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does not the figure that has been quoted for education in the public expenditure White Paper, and the reductions that are due to take place, effectively put into perspective the offer that the Secretary of State for Scotland was making to the teachers, saying that there might be benefits for them if they would accept his phoney terms and conditions for negotiation? Obviously the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been told that.

Mr. Bruce: I agree with that point, and I was just about to come on to deal with it. In the total education budget, including the Scottish Office section, there is a cut of £61 million in Scottish education for next year. That is a cut of 4·5 per cent. when, simply to protect education in real terms, there should be an increase of £96 million. If we had such an increase, there might be realistic discussions about how the teachers can be properly rewarded and how we can have a realistic framework for negotiations. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) has rightly said, the Secretary of State's offer means nothing when his budget shows that there are no conceivable resources in it to meet any realistic, sane or fair settlement. The teachers are right to dismiss the Secretary of State's offer as the demonstration of bad faith that they know it to be. The Secretary of State is in no position to offer it, and that is regrettable.
The practical consequences of this problem in education can be stupid, to say the least. Some years ago, the regional council in Grampian decided, perhaps because it had been motivated by the enthusiasm of a

former Secretary of State for Education and Science, now the Prime Minister, to cater for pre-school children, and to build some nursery schools. There are two custom-built nursery schools in my constituency that have never functioned as nursery schools. My constituency has the highest number of pre-school children of any constituency in Scotland. Despite that, such custom-built nursery schools are not open and not providing facilities.
In the same local authority area, in the city of Aberdeen, 45 per cent. of pre-school children go to nursery schools. In Gordon district, under the same local authority, 4·5 per cent. go to nursery schools. Yet in Inverurie, the main centre of Gordon district, there is a nursery school that is not open. Understandably, the people are campaigning hard, with my full support, for it to be opened. That is not sensible budgeting by the Government. It is stupid and provocative to local communities.
The districts and regions that make up my constituency represent a good cross-section of Scottish local authorities. Gordon district is a non-political council; the city of Aberdeen is Labour-controlled and Grampian region has a minority Tory administration. Yet all of them are equally angry about what they are being asked to do.
When I intervened in his speech at the start of the debate, the Secretary of State was unable to give a satisfactory explanation of why Gordon district, even with a no-growth budget increase of 5·5 per cent. on last year, within guidelines, will be recommending a 100 per cent. rate increase. The rate increase would be 138 per cent. if the council did not have reserves from last year to draw on. No rational person could believe that that was justifiable. The Secretary of State cannot possibly defend it.
It is perhaps worth reminding hon. Members of the peculiar nature of Gordon district as a council. It has a population growth running at an average of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. per annum. In 1975, the population was 47,000; it is now 68,000, and the projection for 1990 is 80,000. Yet it is not able to meet even the inflation rate, never mind the population growth, and will have to double its rate. I should make it clear that the total rate for Gordon district includes the regional rate, but that does not resolve the problem.

Mr. Ancram: I am sure the hon. Member wishes to be fair. He can perhaps confirm that the rate in Gordon at the moment is 9p in the pound and is one of the very lowest in the country. When he talks about the difficulties that it is facing, he could perhaps confirm that in the current year it has budgeted for a balance of £789,000, which is about 85 per cent. of its rate income. If it is concerned about ratepayers because of some of the pressures that are necessary, does he not think that it could help the ratepayers by using some of that balance?

Mr. Bruce: If the council had not had last year's balance to draw on, the rate would have gone up even more. In its budget it is no doubt anticipating what will happen next year—the total withdrawal of Government grant. If the Minister can give me an assurance that that will not happen, I may be able to persuade the council to budget for slightly less of a surplus Given that the grant has been cut this year, it is arguable that the council is not being imprudent. Certainly it has not been rewarded for its prudence in the past.
Grampian regional council, which covers a wider area, has sustained a population growth averaging 1 per cent. For a 4·5 per cent. increase in its budget next year, within the guidelines, it will be proposing a rate increase of 12·5 per cent., three times the rate of inflation. That is not defensible. Hon. Members will appreciate that a 4·5 per cent. increase in the budget is a real cut because there has been population growth.
The client group method of assessing rates seems to be unfair in its application to a number of areas. Although many people argue that the client group approach is fairer than the previous ways of assessing rates, nevertheless it contains an element of historical analysis which means that high-spending authorities benefit more than prudent authorities. It does not take proper account of authorities which have high growth rates, because the figures for population are out of date. Consequently, authorities are penalised. Its speedy implementation means that it is difficult for authorities which are losing on the system to adjust. The Minister should give an assurance that the phasing in of this system will take the four or five, or more, years originally suggested rather than the two or three years that appears to be the case.
Over the last few years the contribution to the regional council has been reducing, compared with that to other regions in Scotland. It might be argued that Grampian is more prosperous and could expect that. Given the growth in the area, the extent of the reduction in grant has been unfair. In 1977–78 Grampian had 8·83 per cent. of the population and got 8·41 per cent. of the Scottish total. In 1985–86, with 9·85 per cent. of the population, it will get 8·74 per cent. of the total. The Government's contribution to Grampian has fallen from 75 per cent. to 52 per cent., which is less than the overall average.
The third council which completes the representative group in my constituency is Aberdeen city. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) is not here at the moment. It is easy for him to play party politics with the budget that the Labour group wishes to set in Aberdeen city, but it is inescapable that, if Aberdeen were to follow the Government guidelines, it would have a 6·5 per cent. reduction in services for a 13 per cent. increase in rates.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the closing of Bon Accord baths and the proposed closure of branch libraries. These proposals have been through the relevant committees and no counter-suggestion came from the beleaguered and diminishing Conservative group. If the Conservative councillors feel so strongly about it, one would have thought that they might have put forward alternative suggestions. So far as I can discover, they made no contribution to the debate. This is probably why they will soon disappear altogether from the council, and the sooner the better.
In the city of Aberdeen there will also be rent increases of nearly £4 a week. The popular view of north-east Scotland, including Aberdeen, is that it is full of oil-rich people. The housing manager in the city of Aberdeen estimates that, after the rent increase that will be required because of the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order passed by the House yesterday, 75 per cent. of council tenants will be on housing benefit in that supposedly oil-rich city. That is the achievement of the Government. When they try to play cheap party politics, the Government should remember that there are ordinary

peoople at the bottom of the calculation who have to try to make ends meet and who are getting little help from the Government under the order that we are debating.
The settlement is unreasonable in every way. The Minister will not impress people outside the House if he chooses to play cheap party political games when the facts staring him in the face are that he is forcing up rates for a reduction in services in every council. He is doing so in a way that is unjust and unfair even by his parameters—that the councils that have followed Government policy have been penalised just as much as the rest. There is not much incentive for councils to be responsible when the Government treat them in that way. Proper account should be taken of the population growth in the north-east. If the Government showed a real interest in tackling the problems of local rates, local authorities might be able to run their affairs properly.
The Minister should take account of the specific problems of growth areas. He should recognise that what he has done is unjust and is seen to be unjust by many, including those within the Conservative party. Conservative Members who represent Scottish constituencies know that many Conservative councillors in Scotland are unhappy. Of course, such councillors are a disappearing breed. Unfortunately, Conservative Members have not had the courage to take up the feelings of Scottish Conservative councillors, save for the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). In the circumstances, my colleagues and I will vote against the order.

Sir Hector Monro: I am aware that the House wishes to get on with the debate, and I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks.
This debate takes place, as did last night's, against the background of the Government's statement on public expenditure, which calls for constraint. Opposition Members talk about cuts, but in real terms we are spending far more on local authorities than we were when the previous Labour Government were in power. There are substantially more people in post in local authorities than there were in the middle of the 1970s.
We hear the continual cry about reducing the percentage of Government support, but in 1978–79 the then Labour Government cut the percentage of support by 4 per cent., which was substantially more than the cut this year. Labour Members should take account of the record of the previous Labour Government before making the sweeping statements in which they have indulged today and yesterday.
I accept that revaluation this year has made it extremely difficult to make fair comparisons. Percentages have been bandied around the Chamber tonight, and many of them are probably extremely unreal. We have heard about rates being increased by 100 per cent., but much depends on the base from which we start. An increase from 2p to 4p is not so dramatic as talk of an increase of 138 per cent.
The Government have introduced an additional settlement of £19 million since the original announcement in August 1984. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that if local authorities spend to their guidelines there will be more spent in real terms than there was last year. That is not a cut in local authority expenditure.
If we exclude revaluation and a local authority is on a standstill budget in real terms, rate increases should surely be near to the rate of inflation. If we allow for revaluation, increases should certainly be under 10 per cent. What are we to adjudge from the increases that are being announced of 20 to 25 per cent. for regions, and 30 to 40 per cent. for districts? Are we to assume that the formula has gone haywire or that the client group system has not worked, or have authorities increased their budgets far beyond the 1984–85 level in real terms? In the first place, we must look for savings.
If the formula has gone haywire, it is up to my right hon. and hon. Friends to find a formula that works. If the client group method has not worked, local authorities must examine their budgets again before fixing their rates, which will probably be done next month.
It has always been difficult for local authorities to meet the targets that are set by finance committees. It is as hard now as it has ever been. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give us more information about the impact of revaluation, which is perhaps the greatest mystery in the whole conundrum. My hon. Friend knows that Dumfries and Galloway has an exceptional record of keeping within guidelines and keeping down its expenditure. However, it has found that its rate will increase by 22 per cent., and that 15 per cent of the increase will be due to revaluation. That is a bitter pill to swallow for a region that has behaved in model terms in setting its expenditure.
I am extremely glad that there has been an increase in the needs element of £1·8 million for Dumfries and Galloway, but, conversely, the districts within the region have had to suffer substantial cuts in their needs element. I accept that expenditure on education, roads and transportation is regional expenditure. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows, I have a particular wish to see rural schools maintained. If the education budget has to be reduced, that will put some of them in jeopardy.
We spoke last night about housing and I mentioned the difficulties facing the district councils. The regional and district councils will have to make some harsh decisions in the coming weeks before they fix their rates. They must try to get much nearer to the guidelines.
Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary hold out any hope for further discussions on the year's examination that will be relevant to the needs element of some of the rural districts and regions, which seem to be most seriously affected by the formula that we have put into operation this year?
Bearing in mind the constraint on time, I shall not enter into a discussion on the rating system. However, if it is to give rise to the incomprehensible system of local government finance that some suggest, the sooner that we find an alternative system the better. I shall support my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in any efforts that he makes substantially to change the system.
I have said frequently that I have never underestimated the importance of good housekeeping in local authority finance and the necessity to keep manpower to a minimum. I hope that the authorities that keep within the guidelines will make a firm effort over the next few weeks to examine their manpower figures within the budgets that they have submitted.
I find the Opposition irresponsible in the statements that they have made over the past two days. They seem not to understand the risk of inflation and the need to contain

public expenditure. It is crucial that we contain the level of inflation, or even reduce it over the coming year. It is only in that way that we shall in the long run—

Mr. John Home Robertson: Why are the Government forcing up the rates?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is becoming the most arrogant Member of this place. His move to the Opposition Front Bench has gone to his head. I wish that he would try to behave in a more reasonable way.
We must work towards maintaining the minimum rates increase necessary to keep inflation down. I know that that will be hard and difficult work, but, in the long run, it will be the only way forward. For local authorities, public expenditure is as important as Government expenditure. I hope that Ministers will stick to this line: if they can find any extra money, they should be prepared in the coming year to give it to important items such as education and housing.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: These orders are a recipe for further attacks by the Tory Government on the living standards of the people of Scotland. If implemented, they will cause massive rate and rent increases and threaten many of the essential services provided by local authorities, such as education, transport, housing and social work provision for the elderly, sick and disabled.
Since the Conservative party came to power in 1979, it has cut rate support grant from 75 per cent. to 56·6 per cent. of total expenditure. There is particular concern about the cut in the needs element payable next year to district councils. My district council of Falkirk will suffer a cut of £1·5 million in the needs element payable—a reduction of almost 50 per cent.
This morning, we questioned COSLA representatives and asked whether they could quantify the effect of these measures on rate increases. We were told that some local authorities, even if they keep to the guidelines issued by the Secretary of State, will need to increase rates by more than 60 per cent. Those COSLA representatives were not just giving instances of Labour-controlled authorities. We were told that the average Scottish domestic ratepayer would face an increase of about £50 per annum — an increase of more than 15 per cent., which is more than three times the rate of inflation. Yet the Secretary of State has had the audacity to tell us that the rates increase should be in line with inflation. The right hon. Gentleman's sums do not add up. Of course he may be just abusing the English language. The right hon. Gentleman is either innumerate or illiterate, or perhaps he is both.
Since the Tory party came to office in 1979, rents have more than doubled. The orders passed last night will mean an increase in rents of at least 10 per cent., if the Secretary of State has his way. About 80 per cent. of total council housing costs will now be met from rents. That places a considerable extra burden on council house tenants in every local authority area in Scotland.
When talking about services under threat, we are referring not just to Christmas trees and Christmas lights, which the Scrooge who represents Stirling constituency wants to switch off. Matters are much more serious than that, although I admit that the Christmas lights are


important in my area and that the council would be unpopular if it tried to make cuts there. Other more essential services will be threatened unless Labour councillors fight the Secretary of State. For example, there is a threat to education at a time of great crisis in virtually every classroom in Scotland. That crisis has been created by the Secretary of State through his mishandling of the teachers' justifiable pay claim. There is a threat to transport, especially in outlying areas. That threat has been posed not only by these orders but by the Bill that will be introduced to privatise or deregulate public transport. There is a threat to leisure and recreation services at a time of record unemployment. There is a threat to social work services at a time when there is an increasing population of elderly people. There is a threat to the sick and the disabled and to the families of miners who are nearing the twelfth month of a long and hard struggle.
Despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and other Conservative Members, I applaud all the Labour-controlled councils, whether regional or district, which are supporting the miners and their families. Although Conservative Members might disagree with us on the merits of the strike, surely it is morally unjustifiable in any circumstance to use starving wives and children to break a strike, using them as political pawns. That is what the Government are trying to do through their DHSS legislation. However, I am glad that Labour-controlled authorities are providing a safety net for the miners and their families.
The orders represent yet another attack on what little local democracy remains in Scotland. Since the Tories came to power in 1979, there have been many attacks on local democracy. The Secretary of State for Scotland has treated the people of Scotland almost as guinea pigs. He tries the legislation out on us before his counterpart the Secretary of State for the Environment copies certain aspects of it in England.
The Secretary of State for Scotland now has a battery of powers of intervention in what were previously the affairs of the locally elected councils. That battery of powers has been created by means of Bills that have— in most, if not all, cases—been voted against by the majority of the elected representatives of Scotland in this place as well as being opposed by the majority of elected representatives in local government.
The Secretary of State and others have raised the spectre of councillors possibly breaking the law. If the Secretary of State pretends to be the guardian of the democratic tradition, he has a responsibility to bear in mind the fact that many of the laws that people may be tempted to break were passed against the wishes and votes of the majority of hon. Members representing Scotland.
In many instances, councillors may not be faced with a simple choice of whether or not to break the law. More agonisingly, they may have to choose which law to break. On the one hand, the Secretary of State has built up the battery of powers of intervention enabling him to dictate to councillors to make cuts. On the other hand, volumes of legislation have been passed over the years imposing statutory obligations on local authorities, involving minimum standards in education, social work, transport and many other essential services.
If it comes to the crunch and we are asked whether we support a discredited Secretary of State or the Labour

councillors who are taking up the cudgels against him. I know on whose side I shall be. I shall be on the side not just of the majority of councillors in Scotland but of the majority of the people, rather than on the side of a Secretary of State who, as I have said on many occasions, received no mandate from the people of Scotland. The councillors whom he criticises have a far better mandate to represent their people. They have a mandate to stand up and defend the rights of the people of Scotland against the Secretary of State.
Once again, at 10 o'clock, all the Tory worms will come out of the woodwork. They will not have listened to a single word of the debate, but they will be whipped through the Lobby to vote for the orders of a Secretary of State who does not represent the people of Scotland.
If ever there was an argument for setting up a Scottish Parliament, here it is. Speed the day when that Parliament is set up and when the voice of the people of Scotland is heard, rather than the voice of a mug of a Secretary of State who does not speak for the people of Scotland.

Mr. Robin Cook: As I understand the argument that the Secretary of State advanced and the theme that has been echoed by those of his Back Benchers who have chosen to support him, it is the contention of the Conservatives that this rate support grant order buttresses their economic record and strategy by containing public expenditure by local authorities.
It is appropriate therefore to reflect in passing that the Government's economic strategy has produced a record that consists of the highest unemployment in British history, the lowest pound in British history, the highest real interest rates in British history, record bankruptcies in each of four successive years and the worst balance of trade figures in manufactured goods since the Tudor dynasty. In view of that record, it is brazen for the Conservatives to argue that what they are doing is desirable because it will buttress their economic strategy.
If that is their contention, and even if we set aside the appalling economic record that the order is supposed to support, it is still irrelevant to argue that the order is part of the process of containing public expenditure. The key issue is not what should be the level of public expenditure by local authorities—although I am quite prepared to have a debate on that and to argue that it should be a good deal higher—but how the guideline expenditure should be financed, what proportion should be met out of rate support grant and what proportion should be left to rates. It is clear from every speech so far that the order will increase the proportion that is met out of rates and that that will result in large increases in rates throughout Scotland.
I take issue with the hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). In an extraordinary speech the hon. Member for Stirling appeared to suggest that the grant to his local authority should be cut still further. Both hon. Members argued that, in some way, the order helps the Government to combat inflation. The order ensures that rates in Scotland will increase by roughly three times the level of inflation and it is part of the higher lunacy of monetarism to argue that, by putting up rates three times faster than inflation, the Government are somehow helping to contain inflation.
While the Government are shifting the balance of expenditure to be met from local sources on to local authorities, they are leaving those local authorities with


less financial independence and discretion. It is impossible to view that trend without unease, because we are witnessing a growing centralisation of the state. It worries me to see growing accretion of power at the centre—on grounds of high principle, because it is an erosion of local democracy. It worries me also on grounds of practicality because it is impossible for the Scottish Office to regulate properly the affairs of 70 local authorities. I intervened during the Secretary of State's speech and it was quite clear from his response that he does not know or understand the financial circumstances of West Lothian district council. I do not criticise him on that count, but his response proves conclusively that it is impossible for any Secretary of State, even one as able and fluent as the right hon. Gentleman, to impose an appropriate financial straitjacket on local authorities which vary so much. We should reflect their differences by giving local authorities the greatest latitude.
West Lothian district council is traditionally controlled by Labour. I do not apologise for that or seek to excuse it. It also has a long history of finsncial responsibility. The council has pursued the pragmatic policy of seeking value for money. I invite Conservative Members not simply to take my word for it. Reference has been made three times during the debate to the letter to the Secretary of State from the Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses. One paragraph of that letter states:
We … must specificlly cite the proposed grant cut to West Lothian District Council of some £1·4 million. West Lothian is one of Scotland's more efficient councils"—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cook: I am most grateful for the support of my hon. Friend—
whose spending per head of population is only some two thirds of the Scottish average. A rates support grant cut of this severity will have a dire effect on their ability to provide services and will result in businesses paying more for less".
I would also cite the statement of the local ratepayers action group, whose secretary, an estimable woman who put considerable effort at the last general election into trying to prevent me from becoming the representative of the Livingston constituency, inspected the books of the West Lothian district council the other year and afterwards congratulated it upon its book-keeping and financial housekeeping. That testimony does not come from traditional Labour sources. It is testimony to a long tradition of stringency which that local authority has applied to its financial outlays.
What is the result of that effort? It is a savage cut in rate support grant of two thirds, taking it, over two years, down to one third of the current rate support grant. The speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on this point on Tuesday was greeted with incomprehension by those who heard it. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I do not transgress the rules of the House if I say that the director of finance of West Lothian district council somehow managed to hear the speech of the Under-Secretary of State when he replied to the Adjournment debate on Tuesday. Afterwards, he told me that he was worried when he heard the Under-Secretary say that this cut would not require an increase of 20 per cent. in the rates because, he said, "We might actually do it on 19·5 per cent. and that is what I thought he was going to say."
The Under-Secretary said that the cut in our rate support grant would require an increase in rates in the Lothian region, including West Lothian, of only 1 per cent. That

is wholly beyond the understanding of the officials, never mind the councillors, who are responsible for administering the finances of the district council.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member ought to be accurate about what I said on Tuesday. I said that, if West Lothian both this year and next spends within the guideline and if Lothian region were to do the same, that would be the overall effect on the rate. What I did not say to the hon. Member on Tuesday — perhaps he would like to comment upon it now—is that my understanding is that, in the current year, West Lothian is rating for a balance of 25 per cent. on its rate income. In his concern for the ratepayers, does not the hon. Member think that this could also be used in some way to support them?

Mr. Cook: I have no doubt that the district council will make an adequate, prudent and judicious use of its balance. The Minister has made this point twice during the debate. It is extraordinary that the Government should now attempt to argue for financial stringency and financial discipline while they oppose those local authorities that prudently lay up a balance. When I was involved with local government, it was regarded as an act of prudence rather than as a matter for criticism to lay up a balance.
I shall send back to the Under-Secretary a question to which he can reply when he winds up. Let me take the calculation that he has just offered to the House — I leave aside for the time being Lothian region — and assume that West Lothian district council comes down to the guideline. We are talking about a cut of less than 1 per cent. in total expenditure. What, then, in his calculation will be the percentage increase in rates in terms of the district rate required to compensate for the cut in rate support grant that he is making? It will be a minimum of 15 per cent. — three or four times above the level of inflation.
I wish to make only one further point in support of the case of my local authority for more resources. It takes us to the heart of the debate about rate support grant. One of the reasons why Governments have hitherto used rate support grant as a means of financing local services is that the means by which central Government raise taxation is, on the whole, more progressive than the rating system. Therefore, through income tax and corporation tax they are able to use the rate support grant in a way that redistributes resources from the wealthier to the less well off areas of our country.
There can be no doubt whatever that West Lothian district is one of those less well off areas. It is the area with the third highest unemployment anywhere in mainland Scotland. I constantly see, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) sees, men over 45 coming to my surgery who have been unemployed for one or two years and who are reduced to grinding poverty by the conflict between short-term supplementary benefit rates and long-term unemployment. It is a source of distress to me that I am unable to offer them any solution to their poverty.
We have a male unemployment rate of 25 per cent., which will get worse before it gets better. We now face a cut in rate support grant from the Government to one third, following the total extinction of our housing support grant. In six years, Government support will have fallen from £7 million in 1980 to a forecast £700,000 in 1986. It has fallen to one tenth of its level of five years ago.


Effectively, this area, one of the most deprived and poor areas of central Scotland, is being told that it will have to meet all its own services and needs out of its own resources and revenue raised locally. That is grotesquely inequitable.
There can be no doubt that part of the problem that we face in West Lothian, part of the poverty, part of the loss of jobs, is the result of a loss of purchasing power from that decline of Government grant to the local authority.
The Secretary of State began by referring to some highly politicised local authorities. My local authority has not approached this dispute in a spirit of confrontation. Indeed, little of what I have said will be controversial in West Lothian. Conservative as well as Labour voters are affected by the increase in rates. Conservative as well as Labour supporters in my constituency fall unemployed and find themselves dependent upon benefits. There would be broad support for what I have said throughout the political community of West Lothian. I deprecate the spirit of acrimony and confrontation in which the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) addressed himself to the community affairs of the constituency that he represents.
There is at present consensus in West Lothian over what I am saying and there is no attempt by the local authority to push the issues of political confrontation, because it would much rather have a solution. Yet if the Government want political confrontation with my and other local authorities, they are going the right way about securing it. If they want to avoid that confrontation, they should seek to reverse the irresponsible, irrational and deeply damaging cuts in grant that they now propose.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and others of my hon. Friends for shortening their speeches and enabling me to make my contribution.
Let it be clear that the Government's proposals today have much less to do with the realities of local government and essential services in Scotland than with their central objective to reverse the burden of taxation, as they see it, and to impose that burden upon ratepayers, and in particular, upon those who are paying rents. That is what this rate support grant order is all about.
The Secretary of State has increased the domestic element, but there is nothing generous about that. He has taken it from the needs and resources element, and few district or regional councils would agree with that approach.
When Governments make such proposals and try to relate them to local authority interest, they should take into account the problems of communities and the general atmosphere that exists. How can the Government ignore the economic and industrial plight which has beset Scotland and which is in no way reflected in the proposals which they have put before the House?
I want to deal briefly with the two local authorities which are of concern to my constituency, Monklands and Strathkelvin. I know that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), who has met Strathkelvin district council and knows of its problems, is in Edinburgh on important parliamentary business. I make no criticism of that. I mention it to illustrate the fact that in Strathkelvin the local council is not irresponsible and

rebellious for the sake of it, but is anxious to do what Parliament has asked it to do; that is, to carry out the functions which we expect district councils to perform in a way that responds to the community's needs. The orders would make life in Monklands and Strathkelvin extremely difficult.
In addition, the order that we approved last night on housing support grant would mean that rents in Monklands would be forced up by £2·70 a week because we shall have lost both housing support grant and rate fund contributions. In Strathkelvin the increase would be £2·50 a week.
It is not, therefore, simply a case of examining the rates that people will pay. We must examine the rents which the Government seek to impose, as well as the additional burden of rates which this order would impose, if only because council tenants are also ratepayers.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden and I have received a letter from Mr. Mallon, the chief executive of Strathkelvin district council. He refers to the rate support grant, the housing support grant and rate fund contributions. He states:
In common with all Authorities we now have all of the above information to hand and can see very clearly the bleak picture facing us.
The decisions of the Secretary of State on these matters have brought about a set of circumstances which will have very painful consequences for all ratepayers. In fact, it would seem to be clear that if Authorities are to continue to take their duties towards their ratepayers seriously they will have very great difficulty in meeting the guideline figures imposed by the Secretary of State. It is probably true to say that only a few Authorities can realistically do this.
Mr. Mallon continues:
Other effects of the grant settlement will be disastrous. As far as the distribution of needs element is concerned, in 1985/86 the Secretary of State proposes to move to the second stage of distribution based on the relative assessed needs (the Client Group approach). These models purport to be more discriminating and sensitive but in no way do they meet the individual needs of particular Authorities. For instance, such a generalised model takes no note of particular factors applying to us, such as the existence of a Sports Centre which we simply cannot wish away but which necessarily needs hefty Revenue commitment. This Sports Centre was built prior to Reorganisation and was, therefore, in effect, inherited by Strathkelvin … In 1985/86 the Secretary of State has decided to make a restriction of 4p in the £ loss as far as Districts are concerned. This means a loss of grant in Strathkelvin of £900,000, with the possibility of further losses in future years. The unreasonableness of this is self-evident.
I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed in that letter.
In the light of the rate support grant order and the Government's disregard for the statistics, especially those for inflation, which Opposition Members have presented to them, they should publicly defend the reduction in services, which will inevitably arise from their policies.
When local authorities in the Strathclyde region find it necessary to take unpopular decisions, such as the regional council's present consideration whether to close fire stations in my constituency and in Strathkelvin, it is extremely nauseating to find Conservative spokesmen attacking those decisions and giving the impression that they are the sole and exclusive responsibility of Strathclyde. I hope that Strathclyde region can avoid such closures, but Conservative spokesmen know in their hearts that it is impossible for Strathclyde to meet the Government's figures without reducing these or similar services.
Today I received a letter from the parents of pupils at Lenzie academy, protesting, rightly, about the problems


of education. Those problems will continue if councils are denied resources. That is the real argument. The Government have not been successful in reducing public expenditure. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) was wrong about most things, but he was at least right to assert that, although the Government have not reduced public expenditure to the extent that they said they would, they have changed the emphasis so that local authorities are being encouraged to reduce manpower and thereby to put more people on the dole, at enormous public expense.
During last night's debate on the housing support grant some Conservative Members appeared to recite from Treasury briefs. A point that shone through their speeches and, I regret to say, through the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, was that they had persuaded themselves that Scotland was getting a better deal than England. The Minister must accept that local government in Scotland is different from local government elsewhere. In England, local authorities are not responsible for water, sewage, or probation. Scotland has twice the number of home helps that England has, because that is the sort of people we are. Scotland has many geographical problems, especially in the highlands. If councils tried to save on road works five or six years ago, the people count the cost today. Costs have increased substantially, and it is not good enough to say now that authorities have not kept within the guidelines.
Even at this 11th hour the Minister should speak for Scotland and accept that the points that I have just made about Scottish local government, and the points made by my hon. Friends, should also be made by him and by the Secretary of State. If they fail in that duty, they should be clear that the people of Scotland will neither forgive nor forget.

Mr. Jim Craigen: If my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Clarke) thinks that he has problems now, he ain't seen nothing yet. He must only wait until the 1985 rate support grant order has its effect. From listening to the Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon one would have thought that this was any old year for rate support grants, give or take the impact of revaluation. However, 1985 will be the year in which domestic rates will erupt because inflation and revaluation will take their toll. Moreover, the chickens will come home to roost for the Government. The Government have reneged on the long-heralded rating reform; they have reduced yet again the rate support grant to local authorities below the rate of inflation; and they have resiled from giving full coverage to domestic rate payers by providing new money to give them the relief that they require.
Scottish Office Ministers seem determined to give Scottish local government a bad name and domestic ratepayers a poor deal with higher rates and reduced services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out, the Government effectively will be taking an extra £250 million out of the rating system. The figures can always be misleading, but the domestic ratepayer can expect an average of an extra 21p on rating, excluding the impact of the revaluation. Even authorities within the spending guidelines laid down by the Scottish Office will have to increase their rates as a result of the reduction in grant aid.
When I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), I wondered whether I was in the same place that I was in this morning when the convenor of Dumfries and Galloway, councillor John Jamieson, was pointing out the special difficulties that his regional council faces over education in particular. Specialist teacher posts are having to be cut out because of the difficulties now faced by his authority which has operated within the guidelines over the years. But it is typical of the easy-osey fashionable way in which the hon. Member for Dumfries operates.
As to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), thank heavens that he is not running Aberdeen district council or Grampian region. The Government are making a big enough mess of national affairs without the hon. Gentleman's ineptitude stretching into the pockets of local authorities. He mentioned that all the problems would be resolved if only the councils could sell more council houses. I have news for the hon. Gentleman. North-east Fife, which the Government for the first time, I believe, have turned into a non-Tory-controlled authority — [AN HON. MEMBER: "Still Tory."] the authority is still Tory in name, perhaps—has sold proportionately more council houses, yet one of its district councillors pointed out yesterday that a rates rise of 37 per cent. would be necessary just to maintain the present level of authority services.
The Secretary of State did not challenge the rate rise increases for the borders and elsewhere that were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscaclden, which will now be necessary because the Government are cutting back on the proportion of grant aid allocated to local authorities. District councils, as we have heard today, will be particularly hard hit. They will fare even worse than the regional councils. The needs element is being slashed back in the district councils.
The Secretary of State is quoted as saying that it is all a matter of judgment. He has not explained how he reaches that judgment. He certainly did not give a very convincing explanation today.
My hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) both spoke in the Adjournment debate on Tuesday, 22 January. I commented to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow — because my late in-laws used to live in his constituency, and voted for him, of course—that it is well seen that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) did not become the Tory Member of Parliament for West Lothian when the hon. Gentleman fought my hon. Friend. He would not have given that kind of rubbish to the constituents of West Lothian or he would have been chased out of West Lothian.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South was not chased out, because he made speeches that the constituents wanted to hear—which were a bit different from what he has been saying today.

Mr. Craigen: I always knew that the hon. Gentleman was a slick lawyer.
Scottish householders will be paying on average an extra 8 per cent. as a consequence of the revaluation. Glasgow reckons that its average increase will be 18 per cent., and the city will be particularly hard hit as a result of the orders approved by the House last night and the rate support grant order that the House is asked to approve tonight.
Local authority spending forecasts are in excess of what the Secretary of State says the authorities will receive in 1985–86. Several services, such as transport, including concessionary fares, will be particularly hard hit. It will be difficult for some regional councils to operate their concessionary fares at the present percentage rates. At a time of record unemployment, leisure and recreation facilities will be hit. At a time when the House is considering the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill, libraries and museums will be affected.
The constant pressure on local government resources is a sort of Chinese torture on councillors. As was pointed out by the treasurer of Strathclyde regional council, if the Government had maintained their grant aid as a proportion at 1979 levels, householders in Strathclyde would be £1 a week better off. The Government are shifting the cost of local government services on to the ratepayers. That is the political message that is coming across. Just as the Government are moving from direct to indirect taxation, so the cost of national services, operated by local authorities, is being shifted more and more on to the ratepayers.
The proportion of money that ratepayers are being asked to cough up is constantly increasing, because the Government are cutting their aid. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) pointed out, the Government could have done more for domestic rates relief in the settlement that must follow the revaluation. The Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for health talks about limiting the number of drugs that will be prescribable on the NHS. When the people get their rating assessments next month, they will be zooming to the medicine cabinets. They do not know what is about to hit them.
We are discussing the issue in a largely academic atmosphere, and people will admit that they do not know what it is all about. We are looking to the Secretary of State for greater assistance for domestic ratepayers. We want him to give the guarantee that he is giving to industrial ratepayers, that there will be no going back on the domestic reliefs to local authorities. It is ironic that the Government, who have permitted the industrial sector to suffer so much from the economic policies, should, on the ground of conscience, be trying to ameliorate the situation. After all, the industrial sector will gain most as a result of the revaluation.
The Secretary of State talks about cross-border comparisons, but we have been through all that before. In the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984 he did his best to protect the caravanners, football grounds and racecourses. But we want comparability for Scotland's domestic ratepayers as well. It is important that the Secretary of State should be more forthcoming.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the availability of appeals. There will be a great queue of domestic ratepayers submitting appeals once they have received their assessments next month. I just wonder whether there will not be a chaotic period in local government before all those issues are settled, as it will take many months to settle them.
Several hon. Members have referred to the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Limited, and I wish to mention the letter that we have received. The secretary said that the federation had

proposed to the Secretary of State that he should extend rates consultation to include himself and his Ministers. The federation said that it was ready to meet him at any time, and added:
The Government are really the major cause of rate rises in 1985–86".
My right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) referred to unemployment and the difficulties of the housing benefit operation in Clydesdale. Her contribution tonight emphasised how serious things are in Scottish local government. I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale that the problems in Glasgow are also horrendous in terms of the amount that ratepayers will have to pay to sustain the housing benefits system. That is because the local authorities are not entirely reimbursed by central Government for what should be a national service.
He who pays the piper calls the tune is a well-known phrase, but the Government, now paying so much less, perhaps half, of the costs of local government, are demanding the total say in the running of local government in view of the Secretary of State's new rate-capping powers. No doubt he will be driven to use them in the current year as a result of the policies that he is pursuing, not as the result of any action by individual local authorities.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South spoke of responsibility. We want to know who is responsible and whom to blame. We want it to be elected councillors so that the buck stops with them. To think that we shall be leaving the fortunes of Scottish local government to that lot of Members on the Government Benches—when half of them do not have a clue and the other half have not even been here for the debate—is a nonsense and an outrage.
The real culprit of higher rates is the Secretary of State for Scotland. The casualties in the coming year will be the ratepayers. I hope that they will write letters to those Conservative Members who go into the Lobby tonight to support what the Government are proposing.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): We have had another of what seem to be regular rate support grant debates. It is always with interest that I await the speeches of Opposition Members on this subject. Having heard all their criticisms of the Government's policy—they repeat them consistently, almost verbatim, on every occasion — I continue to look forward to the day when we hear what they would do if they were in government.
I was surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), when I asked him by how much he thought we should increase the figures, that this was not a time for "throwing around figures". If he wants the people of Scotland to take him and his party seriously, he must start explaining what he would do if he were in the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Indeed, my right hon. Friend asked where the hon. Gentleman would get the money. Unless he makes that equation, there is no reason for us to take his remarks seriously.
The only person who tried to suggest where the money would come from to provide for local government in the way she wished was the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart). If I understood her correctly, she would


abandon the country's defence programme to do it. Perhaps at a later date we shall hear whether that is official Labour party policy.
What we are talking about tonight is what we have talked about every time we have discussed this subject, and that is the level of expenditure by local government in Scotland. We have heard again tonight from Opposition Members accusations that the Government have imposed vicious cuts on local authorities in Scotland. The hon. Member for Garscadden knows well — because the figures were agreed with COSLA — that since 1979, spending by local authorities in Scotland has increased by 2·6 per cent.

Mr. Dewar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Garscadden indicates that that was not agreed. Last year, we agreed the basis of making the calculation with COSLA, and we agreed that that was the figure produced by the basis of calculation.

Dame Judith Hart: I seem to detect the opinion among my hon. Friends that I should reassure the Minister that it is indeed the official programme of the Labour party and of the parliamentary labour party not to have Trident.

Mr. Ancram: I do not want to trespass on anybody else's ground, but my reading of that policy was that the money would be used in other ways within the defence budget. Perhaps the Labour party can sort that out at a quieter time.
We are talking about whether there is room to cut services and expenditure by local authorities in Scotland that have increased over the past five years. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), who once held the responsibilities of Secretary of State for Scotland. He said that it was unrealistic to expect reductions. I find that interesting, because, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland's manpower figures — in terms of non-manual workers—were 20 per cent. lower than they are now. Presumably at that time, as he was presiding over that situation, he believed that it was realistic. If he believed that it was realistic then, it is possible that such savings can be made again, and those savings are precisely the ones that we are looking for.
I suggest that those who say that it cannot be done should look at certain local authorities in Scotland. I do not normally praise the district council in Glasgow, but it has reduced its direct labour organisation by 40 per cent. and is still doing the same amount of work as before. I repeat to Opposition Members that if that council can do it, so can others. For the right hon. Member for Govan to say that it is unrealistic to expect local government expenditure to be reduced is flying in the face of all the facts.
In a sense, the basic question in the debate was not about expenditure but about the system of distributing rate support grant. The House must address itself to a serious question. As hon. Members know, the system of distributing rate support grant was changed last year from the historic system to the client group method. In effect, that means that a distribution can be made which takes account of the needs assessments of individual authorities and tries to make sure that the same services can be provided at basically the same cost within authorities.

COSLA has accepted the system in principle. I concede that last year it said that it was not sure whether we should introduce it as soon as this, but nobody has disputed that this is a fairer system.
I look to the hon. Member for Garscadden again, because this is a question that I believe he can answer. Do he and his party support rate support grant distribution by the client group method? Does he agree with COSLA in that? I shall give the hon. Gentleman the chance to answer the question.

Mr. Dewar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is even refusing to answer that question. I suspect that when he addresses himself to it in a quieter moment, he will realise that he can only say yes. If he says yes, he must be prepared to bear the consequences. One of the consequences of introducing the new system is that there are gainers and losers.

Mr. Dewar: In case the Minister does not get round to dealing with it, what the debate is really about is whether it is fair for the Government, on no basis of justice, to claw back in some cases over 50 per cent. of the rate support grant that is available to certain district councils, substantially to cut in real terms the money available to local authorities as a whole and to leave the unfortunate ratepayers whom the Minister claims to defend with a large share of the burden of the change in the revaluation system.

Mr. Ancram: I am answering the first part of that question in the one that I am asking the hon. Gentleman. If we introduce the client group method of distributing the rate support grant, there will be gainers and losers. In many cases, the losers will be district councils and the gainers regional councils. We have decided that that is a fairer way, which must be introduced. While introducing it, we have made sure that we have put a limit on the effect that it can have, district by district and region by region. In doing so, I believe that over this year, next year and the years to come we shall provide a fairer system of distributing rate support grant than existed before.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman any more. He made points about individual councils, and talked about the effects on those individual councils in terms of rate increases. However, at no stage did he look at the rate basis from which the percentages that were announced came. I do not think that he was here when I mentioned the figures. In Gordon, the current rate is 9p, so the increase about which he was talking is from a small base. He did not mention what the balances of these councils were, and what proportion of their rates went into balances. He did not mention that Banff and Buchan has 49·6 per cent. of its rate in balance. Gordon has 84·7 per cent., Moray 47·3 per cent. West Lothian 25·4 per cent., Cumnock 54·8 per cent. The hon. Gentleman calls them savings, but they are balances that could be used to protect and help the ratepayers, and I hope that the authorities will consider that method this year.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) talked about bringing Scotland into parity with England and about treating the ratepayers of Scotland as fairly as the ratepayers of England. However, at present the average domestic rate is 159p in England and 136p in


Scotland. What is more important to the domestic ratepayer is the bill. Taking account of the different ways of paying for water and sewerage, the average rate payment for a Scottish householder in the current year is £328, as against £393 for England and Wales. Even with the swing from revaluation to the domestic sector in Scotland, the average domestic rates bill was considerably lower in Scotland than in England.
A number of points were raised by hon. Members, and I hope to be able to deal with some of them. The hon. Member for Garscadden talked about the figure produced by COSLA of the extra burden of rates being £250 million. That figure is based on a comparison of this year's provision with next year's and that is not a fair or true comparison. The true comparison is between the actual budgets of 1984–85 and what we are asking them to do next year. On that basis, rateable expenditure will increase by £97 million. If all this fell on the rates in the current year, that would represent an average increase of 6 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) asked a question that he has addressed to me before, about the problems of population increases in arriving at guidelines and grants. The client group assessments are based, as agreed wih COSLA, on the latest and firmly based population estimates and other data. Those for 1985–86 are generally those made in 1983. My right hon. Friend and I understand that there is concern about this, and we undertake to take careful note of the views that have been expressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) thanked the Government for the increase in the needs element of the rate support grant. I hope that he will make it clear to his constituents that his authority is one of the few that saw an increase in the needs element this year. That reflects the behaviour of that council in recent years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) raised the question of a poll tax. In the review that is taking place, I shall bear in mind the points that he has made. At the same time, he will discover, if he looks at the reactions to the Green Paper, that a poll tax is not necessarily regarded as the safest way to proceed.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) made the most extraordinary suggestion of all. His basic accusation against the Government was that we were interfering in local government and telling local government what to do and that we do not allow local government the freedom it had in his day. Yet his basic suggestion was that we should allow 100 per cent. rate support grant to local authorities in Scotland. If he wants to see direct control, that would be the clearest way of achieving it.
Yet again we have heard from the Opposition the irresponsible voice that we have come to expect from them. Methods used to control local government expenditure when they were in office are now condemned as unacceptable. Levels of expenditure which were higher in real terms when they were in office are now described as slashing cuts. Levels of manpower acceptable when they were in government are now condemned as inadequate. Either this is a demonstration that they have abdicated the responsibility and realism that would fit them to government, or they are practising a cruel deception upon their friends. It does not matter which is

the case because these orders provide a balanced programme for local government in Scotland in the coming year and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We can go on until half-past eleven, but the hon. Member has made a speech.

Mr. Canavan: I am raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is it?

Mr. Canavan: I can hardly hear what the Minister is saying because of all the hon. Members whose constituencies will not be affected by this lousy order but who are coming in to try to stifle parliamentary debate. Can you not order them to shut up or to go away so that only Scottish Members of Parliament may vote on the order?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it is time that I put the question.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 166.

Division No. 77]
[10.01 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clegg, Sir Walter


Amess, David
Cockeram, Eric


Ancram, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Corrie, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Couchman, James


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Critchley, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Crouch, David


Baldry, Tony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Batiste, Spencer
Dicks, Terry


Bendall, Vivian
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon, William
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Den


Biffen, Rt Hon John
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dunn, Robert


Blackburn, John
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Richard
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fallon, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Farr, Sir John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Favell, Anthony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fletcher, Alexander


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brinton, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fox, Marcus


Browne, John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bruinvels, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Glyn, Dr Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Gow, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Grant, Sir Anthony


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grist, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Cash, William
Gummer, John Selwyn


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Chope, Christopher
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael






Hickmet, Richard
Portillo, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, William (Corby)


Hind, Kenneth
Powley, John


Holt, Richard
Price, Sir David


Hordern, Peter
Raffan, Keith


Howard, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rhodes James, Robert


Kilfedder, James A.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knox, David
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lamont, Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rowe, Andrew


Lester, Jim
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ryder, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lord. Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David John
Skeet, T. H. H.


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, John
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Maples, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Marlow, Antony
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Stanley, John


Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Terlezki, Stefan


Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moore, John
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mudd, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Murphy, Christopher
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Neale, Gerrard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Needham, Richard
Waddington, David


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steven
Ward, John


Onslow, Cranley
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watson, John


Osborn, Sir John
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wheeler, John


Parris, Matthew
Whitney, Raymond


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wilkinson, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Pawsey, James
Wolfson, Mark


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wood, Timothy


Pollock, Alexander
Yeo, Tim





Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. Archie Hamilton and



Mr. Tony Durant.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hardy, Peter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnett, Guy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Home Robertson, John


Bell, Stuart
Hoyle, Douglas


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Janner, Hon Greville


Blair, Anthony
John, Brynmor


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Boyes, Roland
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lambie, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lamond, James


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Leighton, Ronald


Bruce, Malcolm
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Litherland, Robert


Caborn, Richard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Loyden, Edward


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McCartney, Hugh


Canavan, Dennis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McGuire, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cartwright, John
McKelvey, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clarke, Thomas
McWilliam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Madden, Max


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Marek, Dr John


Cohen, Harry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Coleman, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Meacher, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Michie, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mikardo, Ian


Cowans, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)


Craigen, J. M.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Crowther, Stan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cunningham, Dr John
Nellist, David


Dalyell, Tarn
O'Neill, Martin


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Park, George


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Parry, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Patchett, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Pavitt, Laurie


Dixon, Donald
Pendry, Tom


Dobson, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Dormand, Jack
Pike, Peter


Douglas, Dick
Prescott, John


Dubs, Alfred
Radice, Giles


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Randall, Stuart


Eastham, Ken
Redmond, M.


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Ewing, Harry
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fatchett, Derek
Robertson, George


Faulds, Andrew
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rogers, Allan


Fisher, Mark
Rooker, J. W.


Flannery, Martin
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Foster, Derek
Ryman, John


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Sheerman, Barry


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Garrett, W. E.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


George, Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Gould, Bryan
Snape, Peter


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Soley, Clive


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Spearing, Nigel






Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
White, James


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Gordon


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Woodall, Alec


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Tinn, James



Torney, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Wallace, James
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Weetch, Ken
Mr. John Maxton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1985, dated 9th January 1985, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January be approved.

RATING OF INDUSTRY (SCOTLAND)

Resolved,
That the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order 1984, dated 19th December 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.—[Mr. Lang.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE

That the Agriculture and Horticulture (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1984 (S.I. 1984, No. 1923), dated 6th December 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 th December, be approved.—[Mr. Lang.]

RATING AND VALUATION

That the Tyne and Wear Metro (Rateable Values) Order 1984, dated 10th December 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.—[Mr. Lang.]

CONSUMER PROTECTION

That the draft Dangerous Substances and Preparations (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.
That the draft Novelties (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.—[Mr. Lang.]

Question agreed to.

Home Defence (Farmers)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. John Home Robertson: I understand that the Minister of State has had to come to the Chamber to reply to this debate because the Under-Secretary of State is busy studying bananas in the Windward islands.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the proposal to publish a new version of the pamphlet "Home Defense and the Farmer". The original pamphlet under that title was published in 1958. I understand from a written reply to Lord Melchett that two civil servants have been revising that pamphlet since May 1980. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote to me recently to confirm that the new version was to be published early in the new year. We all look forward to reading the results of five years' work by two intrepid civil servants.
Meanwhile, I urge the Minister to reconsider certain matters before he publishes the advice on farming after the nuclear holocaust. In her letter of 21 December, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the new pamphlet
will present an updating of the advice contained in the previous booklet about the simple steps which farmers could take to afford some protection to themselves and their farms against the effects of radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon exploded some distance away. The advice on these measures remains much the same as it was when the old pamphlet was issued".
That information raises three important points. First, farming has changed dramatically since 1958. The industry is now heavily dependent on bought-in supplies, which would be totally disrupted in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. There are no horses now to take over from tractors when the fuel supplies run out, and the number of farm workers has been more than halved from 679,000 in 1958 to 325,000 now. It will be almost impossible to return to primitive agriculture.
Secondly, the scale of any likely nuclear attack is far greater than was envisaged in 1958. The deployment of dispersed cruise missiles in addition to fixed targets makes it likely that Britain will be subject to a blanket nuclear attack in the event of any hostilities.
Thirdly, the 1958 pamphlet refers to damage from blast and fall-out but says nothing whatever about the other effects that are now thought to be likely, such as the nuclear winter.
I should like to cite some examples of the advice in the pamphlet which the Minister appears to think is much the same as what is needed now. We are told that
people who saw the mushroom-shaped cloud would do well to make ready to shelter in case fall-out followed in their area.
If I saw a mushroom cloud, I would be more inclined to make ready to meet the Almighty.
Remember that the fall-out might be so dangerous that you would have to stay indoors for two days after it came down. This means that you might not be able to get out to milk your cows and they might be in considerable pain by the time you could milk them again".
The Home Office now recommends that one should stay in one's shelter for 14 days before emerging. One can imagine the condition of cows left without being fed or milked for such a long period.
I must give one further example of the advice in the 1958 pamphlet.
you should cut and cart away the grass from your pastures, especially if the fall-out had come in the summer when growth was quick. This treatment would remove most of the fall-out from the pastures. Your cows could then graze the new grass as it grew.
Presumably that contaminated grass would have to be taken to Sellafield for reprocessing.
The final sentence that I have quoted is open to serious doubt, because the new grass could grow only in the presence of heat and light.
The term "nuclear winter" is used to describe the climatic consequences of the smoke and dust raised into the atmosphere in a nuclear conflict. The seminal work on this issue was done by Dr. Turco, Dr. Toon, Dr. Ackerman, Dr. Pollack and Dr. Sagan —TTAPS for short. Their study was subjected to rigorous scrutiny by 100 physicists and biologists before it was published in America in 1983, and was debated even more fully at the Washington conference in October that year. The International Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment—SCOPE—is now considering the matter further, and I have been advised by people in Edinburgh university that there is a widespread consensus among scientists all over the world that this thesis makes sense.
Some of us find it odd that it has taken scientists so long to discover that there is no fire without smoke. The thesis is as simple as that. It requires a calculation of the volume of smoke and dust that would be raised into the atmosphere by a nuclear conflict and a further calculation of how much heat and light from the sun would be blocked by this pall of smoke.
In a written reply of 6 March 1981, the Ministry of Defence said that a 1,000 megaton attack would be required to ensure the destruction of cruise missiles in Britain. The TTAPS study shows that as little, if I can use that word, as 100 megatons could raise enough smoke and dust into the atmosphere to darken the sky and reduce temperatures to minus 20 deg C during an artificial winter lasting two months. A bigger conflict could make things even worse and we should remember that those climatic changes would affect the whole hemisphere.
It has been estimated that only 11 million of our population of 55 million would survive the initial nuclear attack. If a nuclear winter were to occur during the spring or summer, the survivors would find themselves in a devastated, dark, freezing radioactive desert with no prospect of food supplies for many months. There is growing scientific evidence to support the thesis, but the Government, and especially the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have apparently decided to ignore all of the evidence and to adopt tactics that are intended to mislead the public.
In a letter of 21 December, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told me that:
More than one expert has seriously questioned the inputs to the study and the authors themselves have acknowledged that their estimates of the physical and chemical impacts of nuclear war are necessarily uncertain because they used one-dimensional models, because the data base is incomplete, and because the problem is not amenable to experimental investigation".
To take the last point first, thank God it is not amenable to experimental investigation. However, there is evidence from volcanic eruptions to suggest that dust in the upper atmosphere can affect daylight and temperature.
I must try to deal with the Minister's attempt to discredit the entire study, for that is what it is. I asked her to list the scientists to whom she had referred as having

reservations about the findings. In a written reply on 21 December she listed nine scientists, including Dr. Norman Myers of Oxford and the five members of the original TTAPS team. This appears to be a mischievous interpretation of the fact that, although they believe that a nuclear winter would be more than likely to occur, it is not absolutely certain in all possible circumstances. I know that Dr. Myers has protested directly to the Minister about her reference to him as a doubter. Meanwhile. Ministers were refusing to allow civil servants to attend scientific seminars, which were being held to discuss the study, all over Britain. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
In marked contrast, the United States Government set up a panel of scientists to review the issue. The panel published its findings last month. It said in its conclusion:
there is a clear possibility that great portions of the land areas of the northern temperate zone (and, perhaps, a larger segment of the planet) could be severely affected. Possible impacts include major temperature reductions (particularly for an exchange that occurs in the summer) lasting for weeks, with subnormal temperatures persisting for months. The impact of these temperature reductions and associated meteorological changes on the surviving population, and on the biosphere that supports the survivors, could be severe".
The United States Government are therefore taking this material seriously, and rightly so.
It seems a mischievous, cruel nonsense for the Government to attempt to conceal such evidence from the British people. If the Minister refuses to acknowledge the validity of this evidence tonight, I must appeal to scientists to give their evidence on these affairs to Members of Parliament direct to enable Parliament to inform the people, if the Government insist on obscuring the facts.
We know that the Government are obsessed with nuclear weapons, but many of us, and a growing proportion of the population, think that the time has come for nuclear tacticians to see that they have fallen victim to their own deterrence. This is not Left-wing propaganda. It is a matter of historical fact. So I can appeal to this Minister at least to stop trying to kid farmers that they will be able to go back to producing food within days of a nuclear holocaust under the supervision of farm wardens wearing tin hats.
There is increasing evidence that the combined effect of blast, heat, radiation and the subsequent long, freezing night would put an end to food production as we know it. The time has come for a different defence strategy, but that is a matter for another Minister. I certainly hope that this Minister of State will at least say something about the relevance of the TTAPS study and the nuclear winter thesis to the United Kingdom agriculture industry.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): As the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) rightly said, his concluding comments were directed much more to defence matters than to agriculture. Obviously the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go into them tonight.
The hon. Gentleman has shown his interest in this subject by the number of parliamentary questions that he has asked recently and by his correspondence with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to which he referred. Therefore, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing in an Adjournment debate an opportunity for me to explain in greater detail than is possible in


parliamentary questions the Government's position, particularly in relation to the pamphlet that is the subject of the debate.
I should like to address the subject under three main headings: first, the need for such a pamphlet as is proposed; second, the contents proper to such a pamphlet; and, finally, the timing of issue of such advice. The basic premise is that the whole purpose of our defence policy is to prevent the escalation into nuclear war of any other act of aggression on our country. It has very successfully achieved just that over the last 40 years, but to make that deterrence policy even more credible we have to have proper civil defence planning for any eventuality. We must also, under more recent planning assumptions, have regard to lesser eventualities such as a crisis short of war or a period of conventional war.
I do not intend to deal tonight with either of those two eventualities — a crisis such as food shortages, or anything of that kind, or a period of conventional war—because the hon. Gentleman did not do so. However, since both the hon. Gentleman and I have concentrated so much recently upon some of the huge surpluses that we have to deal with in certain commodities in the European Economic Community, we ought to recognise the beneficial aspects of having modest surpluses in certain commodities, because they can help to alleviate some of the crises relating to shortages of commodities around the world. We ought also to recognise the benefits of the increasing move towards self-sufficiency that we have so successfully achieved in recent years in British agriculture. This makes the situation so very different from what it was 30 or 40 years ago.
I want to concentrate, as did the hon. Gentleman, upon the nuclear question. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is well forward with its civil defence planning for food and for agriculture on which advice to farmers must be based. There is no secret about the general outlines of our planning. They were set out in Home Office circular ES 1/79 which is available to the public and which was issued to local authorities in January 1979. Much the same material is contained in the new Home Office consolidated circular on civil defence that was issued to local authorities in draft for comment in July of last year. A copy is available in the Library.
Against this background, the question arises, how much of this material, much of which is organisational, needs to be made known directly to individual farmers and what further advice should they be given about what they themselves should do? I turn, therefore, to answering those questions in relation to the possibility of nuclear war and its consequences.
Nobody disputes that, in the event of a large-scale nuclear attack on the United Kingdom, there would be very large numbers of casualties and widespread disruption. Here we are on territory that is, for most of us, mercifully uncharted, but because of its unfamiliarity it is an area in which we need to give advice. As with conventional war, there is very little to be said that might help those who were at or close to ground zero of a nuclear explosion. The more likely risk in the case of most farmers might be the dangers resulting from radioactive fallout from an explosion some distance away. That was the position when our original booklet, to which the hon.

Gentleman referred, was published in the 1950s. It remains so today, as does much of the advice that can be given to farmers on this matter.
Therefore, it is our intention that this is the ground that should be covered when a new edition of our booklet of advice to farmers is published. I know that some of the advice to be given consists of taking simple action such as getting cattle inside where possible. The hon. Gentleman made some fun of that. I am not suggesting that it is funny, but the hon. Gentleman tried to make it into a funny piece of advice. Another simple action was the covering up of water supplies or improving the protection given by walls by stacking various kinds of material against them. It is easy to criticise advice on those lines as inadequate in the face of the enormity of a nuclear attack, but the fact remains that such action could make all the difference between losing cattle and keeping the radiation dose down to acceptable levels and to having rather than losing a supply of water.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken at length about the perils of a nuclear attack, and, in particular, of the possible effects of a so-called nuclear winter. He is clearly impressed by the case made by eminent scientists about the likely effects of nuclear conflict on the atmosphere. He referred to a particular study and article. He argued that those effects have a bearing on contingency plans for agriculture and on the content of the booklet.
We have never attempted to disguise the fact that the consequences of a nuclear exchange will be appalling. That is why we must prevent war from ever breaking out in the first place. NATO's policies of deterrence, coupled with the unceasing search for genuine arms control agreements, are the best means of maintaining our peace and freedom. As I said earlier, they have worked for 40 years.
However, it would be premature to speculate on the implications of the nuclear winter hypothesis until the results of further more detailed work, carried out in the field to test its scientific validity, are available.

Mr. Gavin Strang: My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has done the House and the country a service by initiating this short debate. He has rightly brought out that the Government, for reasons that I do not understand, have sought to play down, if not discredit, the agreement between American and Soviet scientists that a nuclear winter is the likely outcome of nuclear exchange, not necessarily an all-out nuclear exchange. Why are the Government seeking to play down that result?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not playing down the consequences of an appalling nuclear holocaust, but there are all sorts of possibilities. Let me go into those briefly, from the agriculture point of view. Obviously, what the hon. Member for East Lothian was talking about takes us much wider into the whole area of defence policy as well.
We need to have the results of further and more detailed work to test the scientific validity of the claims; that brings me to a point that the hon. Gentleman made great play of in his speech. In a sense, I detected that he was calling for an update of the booklet and at the same time arguing that it would be irrelevant because of the dangers of a nuclear winter. That seems to be somewhat contradictory, but perhaps I slightly misunderstand his position. He seemed to be urging that we produce the booklet for guidance to farmers—

Mr. Home Robertson: Let me clarify the point. It is fairly futile to offer advice on survival in circumstances where it is becoming increasingly evident that people cannot survive. I am suggesting that, if the Government go ahead with their plans to publish the leaflet, they will simply be trying to mislead the public into thinking that a nuclear war can be survived. That is why I am suggesting that the Minister should not go ahead with publishing the pamphlet.

Mr. MacGregor: Let me come to that point later.
Let me talk directly about the present position with regard to the nuclear winter. The theory has received wide publicity and was the subject of an article to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention. The article is 10 pages long. It contains two rather complex scientific tables and six detailed graphs and concludes with 88 references and notes.
I am not qualified to test the authenticity of that theory. However, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should claim that he was deliberately misinformed when, in reply to a question on 21 November 1984, he was told that reservations about the conclusions of that study had been made by some of those who were themselved involved in the study. That reply was in no sense an attempt "mischievously to undermine the study". There were reservations about the study. The article to which the hon. Gentleman referred ends as follows:
Our estimates of the physical and chemical impacts of nuclear war are necessarily uncertain because we have used one-dimensional models, because the data base is incomplete, and cause the problem is not amenable to experimental investigation. We are also unable to forecast the detailed nature of the changes in atmospheric dynamics and meteorology implied by our nuclear war scenarios, on the effect of such changes on the maintenance or dispersal of the initiating dust and smoke clouds. Nevertheless, the magnitudes of the first order effects are so large, and the implications so serious, that we hope the scientific issues raised here will be vigorously and critically examined.
I characterise that as a reservation, which was the point made earlier.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Perhaps my hon. Friend knows that I am the only professional radiation biologist in the House. Will he accept it from me that the variation in the assumptions behind that paper are of such a magnitude, and the things that people can do to protect themselves from nuclear blast and fallout are such, that any counsel that no action should be taken because of this doomsday scenario would be unfortunate?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which makes the point that I sought to make. Indeed, the authors sought to make that point but did not put it so clearly. I noted that the hon. Member for East Lothian acknowledged that action could and should be taken to deal with lesser effects of nuclear radiation.
The proper perspective on the matter was well put by another scientist, Dr. John Maddox. He was the author of an article in the magazine Nature, published on 1 March 1984. The article was headed:
Nuclear Winter, Not Yet Established",
and subtitled,
Talk of some of the consequences of nuclear warfare had better be postponed until some of the underlying assumptions are better understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) made that point extremely well.
The article concludes:
there is the strongest case for asking that the prospect of a nuclear winter should not be made into a more substantial

bogeyman than it is by those who earnestly wish to avert the prospect of nuclear war as such. By clouding the case with disputable predictions they are in danger of weakening it.
That is what the hon. Member for East Lothian did tonight.
Further reservations were expressed by Dr. Fred Singer in the magazine Practical Civil Defence, published in August 1984. The article is entitled,
Is the 'Nuclear Winter' Real?",
and Dr. Singer questions what he describes as outstanding uncertainties that need investigation.
The current position is that the debate on this matter continues. Further studies are being conducted by the international scientific community, most notably by the neutral body SCOPE, the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, part of the International Council of Scientific Unions. That is an important point. The results of the study are expected in 1985, and the Government will await them with interest. We would not wish to dismiss the nuclear winter out of hand, but as matters stand, many aspects of the argument must be regarded at least as not proven. We shall not, therefore, cover that matter in our pamphlet.
It is important to understand that all this does not mean that our booklet will be of no value. We must plan for a wide range of possible scenarios in our agricultural planning, and cover areas which I have mentioned only briefly, including conventional war and other world crises that prevent the free transport of food as well as the nuclear winter scenario.
Even if we accept the nuclear winter theory without criticism—that is a long way from where I stand tonight—the fact remains that we must still plan for lesser scale attacks, whether conventional or nuclear weapon attacks. There are simple steps which farmers can take to provide some protection for themselves and their farms against the hazards of nuclear attack. It is right that we should renew advice to farmers on what to do about these matters. It will, therefore, be included in our booklet, which still has a useful role to play in this respect.
The timing of the publication of the revised edition must be considered carefully. One reason for considering a revised edition is that, with the renewed interest in civil defence, we are receiving a fairly regular stream of inquiries about such an updated booklet. Therefore, the Government believe that advice to farmers should be published along the lines of that contained in the 1950s pamphlet, now long out of print, and with the same objectives. I stress that much of the advice remains as it was. However, we must not get the importance of the document out of proportion. The main thrust of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food civil defence planning must remain the work being done within the Department, some of which, where appropriate, is being pursued with local authorities.
Some wish us to take more advanced action with regard to the plans—for example, by appointing now the farm wardens who in wartime would be a vital link between a local group of about 20 farmers and the officers of our local agricultural control organisation—the body that would be created at that time to support and guide the industry. However, our present view is that there is no current need to make the appointments, although all the contingency plas are ready.
The areas to be served by each farm warden have been delineated by our regional and divisional offices, and they have identified the sources from which such people might


quickly be drawn. Those chosen would already be people well known in their localities, who already had a good working knowledge of the farms in their areas; that would be their most valuable asset in acting as a channel for advice to farmers, and in conveying farmers' problems to the wartime Ministry.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to record the present position with regard to the new edition of the advice to farmers. The text has been prepared by civil servants in my Department with access to officers of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service for technical farming advice, and to Home Office scientists for material relating to the effects of blast and radiation. The text is substantially complete but is being revised to take account of the latest findings in the new Home Office rules on calculating the effects of radiation and blast. The booklet, as I said, will deal mainly with what we believe to be the aspect most likely to cause problems for farmers—the effects of radiation from fallout.
As for the timing, I cannot give a firm commitment about publication. It depends on when the work is completed. The hon. Gentleman should not complain that the booklet has not been put to press, because it gives me the opportunity to examine his comments and advice on

the booklet. One possibility would be to time publication to coincide with the issue of other civil defence publications in the pipeline, so that it can be seen for what it is—a routine but important part of the Government's continuing work to advance the state of readiness of civil defence.

Mr. Home Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the pamphlet has been revised? Does he recall that HMSO listed it as being published as long as two months ago? Why has it been suppressed? Are the Government embarrassed about it?

Mr. MacGregor: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is so eager to catch his train that he did not listen to my concluding remarks. I made it clear that the booklet is in its final stages of revision, but that it must be finally revised to take account of the latest findings in the new Home Office rules on calculating the effects of radiation and blast. I repeat that it may be desirable to publish it with other civil defence publications in the pipeline, and I hope that if we do so, it will be seen as part of the Government's continuing programme to advance the readiness of civil defence. In that context, I hope that he will welcome it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjournment accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.